Re: Crash with ZFS between r296491 and r296548

2016-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
On 9 March 2016 at 01:39, Ed Maste wrote: > On 8 March 2016 at 18:52, Jean-Sébastien Pédron > wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548 >> and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed

Re: Crash with ZFS between r296491 and r296548

2016-03-08 Thread Ed Maste
On 8 March 2016 at 18:52, Jean-Sébastien Pédron wrote: > Hi! > > I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548 > and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed hits a similar crash. > > Here are the dmesg and backtrace of zfs(8): >

Crash with ZFS between r296491 and r296548

2016-03-08 Thread Jean-Sébastien Pédron
Hi! I use Root on ZFS and my laptop doesn't boot with a kernel from r296548 and world from r296491 (so older than kernel). Ed hits a similar crash. Here are the dmesg and backtrace of zfs(8): https://gist.github.com/dumbbell/c9978ad4ac70214f0f47 With a kernel and world from r296491, everything

Re: loader and load: path?

2016-03-08 Thread John
Hi, (reply is at the bottom of quoted text) On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 04:04:46PM +, Anthony Jenkins wrote: set module_path /boot/kernel # ? I don't think module_path is set to its default "/boot/kernel;/boot/modules" when booting to loader(8) prompt... Anthony Jenkins

geli vs openssl, geli is much slower

2016-03-08 Thread Anonymous
Hello All, The disk encryption on my NAS (RAIDZ1 + ZFS + GELI (aes-128-xts)) is running much slower than expected (80MB/S). It seems that GELI is much slower than openssl for aes-128-xts, the results might be similar for other cipher, but I only verified aes-128-xts and aes-128-cbc. My NAS is

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Roger Marquis
In FreeBSD, we *do* have a compelling case for installing a small subset of the base system: service jails (or ?containerised applications? as the kids are calling them). We want to be able to install, for example, owncloud and nginx or ejabberd in a jail with only the bare minimum required for

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread Gary Palmer
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:59:54PM +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > > > Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If > > anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation > > may provide some inspiration: > > > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread David Chisnall
On 8 Mar 2016, at 17:59, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If >> anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation >> may provide some inspiration: >> >> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/ > > Is

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:35:59PM +, David Chisnall wrote: > On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > > > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is > > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with > > spliting Xorg

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread Kurt Jaeger
Hi! > Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If > anyone is interested in working on this, then the Apple implementation > may provide some inspiration: > > http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/smb/ Is there any way to download this as tgz or something ? It looks painful

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread David Chisnall
On 8 Mar 2016, at 15:14, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > Yes, I undertund this. But what profit of this? Addtional size is > small, many small packages is bad. We already have expirense with > spliting Xorg to many small packages -- no profit of this. The X.org case is similar,

Re: lldb input issue

2016-03-08 Thread Roman Bogorodskiy
Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 03/06/16 15:20, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > > > > > El 06/03/2016 a las 15:05, Baptiste Daroussin escribió: > >> On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 10:55:27PM +0300, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote: > >>>Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> > On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 07:44:34PM +0300,

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 02:39:24PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > [...] > > >> Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs > >> 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 01:18:47PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > > > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > > > branch: > > >

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread David Chisnall
On 8 Mar 2016, at 13:19, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > It would be really nice if somebody can bring better support for FreeBSD's > SMB/CIFS mount. Maybe through FreeBSD Foundation projects. Indeed. Both Solaris and OS X have SMB2 implementations. If anyone is interested in

FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9 - Build #1119 - Still Failing

2016-03-08 Thread jenkins-admin
FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9 - Build #1119 - Still Failing: Build information: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9/1119/ Full change log: https://jenkins.FreeBSD.org/job/FreeBSD_HEAD_amd64_gcc4.9/1119/changes Full build log:

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Miroslav Lachman
Glen Barber wrote on 03/08/2016 14:18: On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: [...] Packaging of individual utilites is useless (total 19MB vs 30.7+2.8+20.7+2.9) and incorrect (for example, WITHOUT_ACCT not only don't build accton/lastcomm/sa but also cut off

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread Miroslav Lachman
O. Hartmann wrote on 03/08/2016 13:53: On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:55:25 +0100 Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote: Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol introduced with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2? No, it only

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Glen Barber
On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 03:40:16PM +0300, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > > > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > > branch: > > > > # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src >

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread O. Hartmann
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:55:25 +0100 Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: > On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote: > > Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol > > introduced with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2? > > No, it only supports the obsolete SMB1

Re: [CFT] packaging the base system with pkg(8)

2016-03-08 Thread Slawa Olhovchenkov
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:54:29PM +, Glen Barber wrote: > To obtain the sources for testing, please use the projects/release-pkg > branch: > > # svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/projects/release-pkg /usr/src > > The projects/release-pkg branch is (at this time) in sync with head >

Re: mount_smbfs(8): support for SMBv3.02?

2016-03-08 Thread Edward Tomasz Napierała
On 0303T1047, O. Hartmann wrote: > Does FreeBSD's mount_smbfs(8) support for Microsoft's SMBv3 protocol > introduced > with Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012/R2? No, it only supports the obsolete SMB1 (aka CIFS) protocol. Since SMB2 is a completely different protocol, supporting it properly