Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 15.03.2013 15:01, Eggert, Lars wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and
> > locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server
> > that ran
> > -STABLE.
> >
> > When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client,
Peter Wemm wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >> >> Hi Rick, all,
> >> >>
> >> >> is there
G'day, All.
First post so please be gentle ;-). Are the barracudas here?
Summary:
Module link-elf will link against static symbols and will fail if the kernel is
not compiled with DDB or the required MODULE_DEPEND has been stripped of local
symbols, see nm -g miibus.ko. I propose that we add a
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Isn't the general process (or at least past pattern) to:
> - have 1 release cycle with just the old code (aka 8.x with oldNFS)
> - have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to old (aka 9.x
> with oldNFS + newNFS)
Actually, your numbering is out by one.
7.x - old only
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> >> Hi Rick, all,
>> >>
>> >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS imp
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > >> Hi Rick, all,
> > >>
> > >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD
> > >
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >
> >> Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the
> >> oldnfs
> >> until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.
> > The flipside to th
On Friday, March 15, 2013 11:24:32 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >> Hi Rick, all,
> >>
> >> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
> >> or to keep both around ind
Isn't the general process (or at least past pattern) to:
- have 1 release cycle with just the old code (aka 8.x with oldNFS)
- have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to old (aka 9.x
with oldNFS + newNFS)
- have 1 release cycle with old and new code, default to new (aka 10.x
with
On 15 March 2013 11:11, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> People in my org have been working with NFS and reporting issues for the
> past year. I'm quite certain that Doug White has reported issues due to
> missing certain caching features of the old code.
>
> This is not indicative that newNFS is bad,
On 3/15/13 10:55 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the oldnfs
until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.
The flipside to this argument (and coming from you is kind of amus
On 15 March 2013 09:55, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Finally, I think it is really premature to declare a sunset for the oldnfs
> until the users are gushing with approval over the new system.
The flipside to this argument (and coming from you is kind of amusing
:-) is that without any kind of suns
On 3/15/13 8:24 AM, Andre Oppermann wrote:
On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
Hi Rick, all,
is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
or to keep both around indefinately?
I'm talking about:
oldNF
John Baldwin wrote ..
> On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:41:04 am Waitman Gobble wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I swapped out the CPU on this machine today, I don't recall seeing these
> > messages
> previously:
> >
> > acpi0: reservation of 0, a (3) failed
> > acpi0: reservation of 10, bfcd0
On 15.03.2013 14:46, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
Hi Rick, all,
is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
or to keep both around indefinately?
I'm talking about:
oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFS
On Friday, March 15, 2013 9:40:56 am Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Hi Rick, all,
>
> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
> or to keep both around indefinately?
>
> I'm talking about:
> oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3
> newNFS in sys/fs/{
On Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:41:04 am Waitman Gobble wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I swapped out the CPU on this machine today, I don't recall seeing these
> messages previously:
>
> acpi0: reservation of 0, a (3) failed
> acpi0: reservation of 10, bfcd (3) failed
You can ignore those. acpi
On 15.03.2013 15:01, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi,
this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and locking
for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server that ran
-STABLE.
When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and
/usr/local, as well as
Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and
> locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server
> that ran -STABLE.
>
> When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and
> /usr/local, as well as the locat
Hi,
this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and locking
for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server that ran -STABLE.
When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and
/usr/local, as well as the location of the respective sqlite data
Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Hi Rick, all,
>
> is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
> or to keep both around indefinately?
>
> I'm talking about:
> oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3
> newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4
Hi Rick, all,
is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0,
or to keep both around indefinately?
I'm talking about:
oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3
newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4
NewNFS supports newer NFS stan
22 matches
Mail list logo