On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:51:10AM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 22:28:29 -0500
From: Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you point to some specific PRs about this or crashdumps before
(or at least while) taking pot shots at the AIO implementation?
In the mean
On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:52:56PM +0300, Valentin Nechayev wrote:
Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 19:56:40, eddy+public+spam (E.B. Dreger) wrote about Re:
libc_r locking... why?:
A Token may not be enough because writes may be reordered.
AFAIK it's false for i386 architecture. Please correct me
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 03:44:03PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Again, I am *not* using pthreads. Worker thread = totally separate
process, created via rfork(2). One process blocks, others continue
running.
I can't see how you make shure that on SMP systems all CPUs have
the same meaning from
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:44:29PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 20:33:51 +0200
From: Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can't see how you make shure that on SMP systems all CPUs have
the same meaning from memory content.
Normaly you would use a mutex or similar
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:09:01AM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Sean Chittenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quick question. Anyone know how gracefully the kernel handles a
socket connection that is killed by the client between a select and
accept call? I don't expect any problems,
I want to use multiple tapes drives at the same time so I
need a way to send or read data without having to block.
aio_* is not a solution because it's not portable to NetBSD.
Is there another portable solution than vfork?
--
B.Walter COSMO-Project
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 12:10:41PM +0200, Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
Hi:
I am debugging a kernel with remote gdb, using
a serial line. I do the following:
1. boot -d, gdb, step (in target machine)
2. gdb -k kernel.debug
Some time later, I get a SIGSEV segmentation fault.
This
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:20:58PM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
:On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 10:33:50AM -0700, Matt Dillon wrote:
:
: :
: :Thanks, I will try setting errno, but I don't think it is signals.
: :I have been running truss on the process. The relevant part is
: :
:
On Sun, Feb 25, 2001 at 05:44:13PM -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
"Matt" == Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[... my newfw bomb deleted ...]
Matt I had a set of patches for newfs a year or two ago but never
Matt incorporated them. We'd have to do a run-through on newfs to
Matt
On Sat, Feb 24, 2001 at 04:08:04PM -0500, David Gilbert wrote:
We have an application which is precompiled, for linux, and stupid.
It uses (at times large) scratch files. We want to run this on our
diskless machines (CPU farm) to cut the per-cpu cost of the
computation ($200/drive starts
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:24:34PM -0700, Edward Elhauge wrote:
OK, vinum is good. But my understanding is that you can't use vinum on
your root partition. By Murphy's Law it always seems to be root that gets
screwed up. And that also causes the biggest problems because then you
have to yank
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:48:06PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000920 13:43] wrote:
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 01:24:34PM -0700, Edward Elhauge wrote:
OK, vinum is good. But my understanding is that you can't use vinum on
your root partition. By Murphy's
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 11:31:06PM -0400, Bill Fumerola wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2000 at 07:02:03PM -0700, Jaye Mathisen wrote:
Just exactly what I said in the Subject. I want to filter on the ethernet
MAC address.
I guess the "ip" in "ipfw" just wasn't obvious enough that it is an IP
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 09:33:37AM +0100, Theo PAGTZIS wrote:
Hi all,
I have been upgrading from 3.4 to 4.1 and during the reboot I get a
permission denied when it tries to exec the /bin/sh. I am trying to
restore the file with one that is functioning properly..however I do not
know
On Thu, Jul 20, 2000 at 06:33:42PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Thursday, 20 July 2000 at 9:55:13 +0100, Geoff Buckingham wrote:
A thing that might bite you here is that ufs is currently limited to 1
TB per volume. Vinum doesn't have that restriction: if you want to
create a 20 TB volume,
On Mon, Jul 17, 2000 at 07:52:01PM +0200, Gergely EGERVARY wrote:
hello all,
I have to set up a box able to run 5000 processes. I have the hardware
for it (i386 architecture, lots of RAM, lots of CPU power)
I'm playing with VM parameters, tuning everything possible, but can't get
more
On Wed, Jun 14, 2000 at 11:52:22AM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
On Tue 2000-06-13 (22:40), Bernd Walter wrote:
I've often thought it would be nice to be able to get syslogd to
make choices based on hostname. I'm sure a patch would be easy
enough to produce, but the trick would
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 05:12:41PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jun 13), Johan Kruger said:
The man page says " ... and the first word in the message after the
date matches the program, the action
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:13:26AM +0530, G.B.Naidu wrote:
Thanks a lot for your reply. It's quite useful. But I have some more
questions generated of this study of nfs code and sendfile(2) code. The
question is about getting a proc structure. Here it is.
As you all know that every system
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:58:41PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 22:09:06 +0200, Bernd Walter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
current process? Is it safe if I use proc0 to pass the proc structure to
call socreate() and sobind()? How safe it is to use curproc
structure
Is it valid to use proc0 for socreate() and sobind() in kernel?
In my case I need to create a TCP connection which is used from different
processes and which may be reconnected from different processes.
--
B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de
[EMAIL
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 08:11:49PM +, Josef Karthauser wrote:
Kirk mentioned that he was confident that softupdates was 'safe', but I've
had files (from a previous crash - recovered from) in lost+found that I
didn't touch, and no-way should have become disconnected from the file
system
On Sat, Oct 02, 1999 at 01:15:53PM +0300, Narvi wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
That's an interesting argument on the part of a few people. The
commercial UNIX I first adminned had wired down, short names for disks
(rz0,
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
"Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:38:48PM +0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 1999, Don Lewis wrote:
On Aug 6, 3:29pm, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
} Subject: quad_t and portability
}
} Hi folks,
}
} I want to patch wc(1) so that it uses quad_t instead of
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 10:53:54AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 23:20:45 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 03:59:46PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 8:12:17 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
For UFS/FFS there is nothing worth
On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 05:21:49PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
I'm seeing on a -stable system that netstat will always print values
obtained from sysctl rather than from the core file specified. Can
anybody confirm this? It doesn't seem like feature to me...
Interesting - I got similar
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 10:53:54AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 23:20:45 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 03:59:46PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 8:12:17 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
For UFS/FFS there is nothing worth
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 03:59:46PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 8:12:17 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
For UFS/FFS there is nothing worth seting the stripesize to low.
It is generally slower to acces 32k on different HDDs than to acces 64k on
one HDD
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 01:35:54PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 11:11:39 +0800, Stephen Hocking-Senior
Programmer PGS Tensor Perth wrote:
No, it would cause a higher I/O load. Vinum doesn't transfer entire
stripes, it transfers what you ask for. With a large
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 12:16:06PM +0800, Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS
Tensor Perth wrote:
No, it would cause a higher I/O load. Vinum doesn't transfer entire
stripes, it transfers what you ask for. With a large stripe size, the
chances are higher that you can perform the
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 03:59:46PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 8:12:17 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
For UFS/FFS there is nothing worth seting the stripesize to low.
It is generally slower to acces 32k on different HDDs than to acces 64k on
one HDD
On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 01:35:54PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Tuesday, 3 August 1999 at 11:11:39 +0800, Stephen Hocking-Senior Programmer PGS
Tensor Perth wrote:
No, it would cause a higher I/O load. Vinum doesn't transfer entire
stripes, it transfers what you ask for. With a large
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Brian F.
Feldman" writes:
: And how about having
: if (securelevel 3)
: return (EPERM);
: in bpf_open()?
There are no security levels 3. I'd be happy with 0. This is
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:17:44PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote:
That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :(
I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in
the rc files, before securelevel is raised.
AFAIK
On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 05:42:57PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
In message pine.bsf.4.10.9907301619280.6951-100...@janus.syracuse.net
Brian F. Feldman writes:
: And how about having
: if (securelevel 3)
: return (EPERM);
: in bpf_open()?
There are no security levels 3.
On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:17:44PM -0400, Ben Rosengart wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bernd Walter wrote:
That would mean you can't run a secured DHCP server :(
I think only the client needs BPF. Anyway, you just start the server in
the rc files, before securelevel is raised.
AFAIK
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 05:12:49PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
each. But I think you could eliminate these ones:
/etc/gettytab
/etc/login.conf
/etc/ttys
I'm not shure on /etc/ttys - init reads it already for singleuser-mode
to check if /dev/console is secure.
--
B.Walter
On Tue, Jul 27, 1999 at 05:12:49PM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
each. But I think you could eliminate these ones:
/etc/gettytab
/etc/login.conf
/etc/ttys
I'm not shure on /etc/ttys - init reads it already for singleuser-mode
to check if /dev/console is secure.
--
B.Walter
On Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 10:09:22PM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I seem to recall seeing this someone (this may not be the
right list.)
But - I downloaded the 3.2 Seti@home and starting running it
on a left-over 75mhz laptop I have.
It seems to crash the laptop (silently lock it
On Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 10:09:22PM -0400, Thomas David Rivers wrote:
I seem to recall seeing this someone (this may not be the
right list.)
But - I downloaded the 3.2 s...@home and starting running it
on a left-over 75mhz laptop I have.
It seems to crash the laptop (silently lock it
On Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 09:33:45AM +0930, Greg Lehey wrote:
On Sunday, 27 June 1999 at 0:35:54 +0200, Ollivier Robert wrote:
I think one of the difficulty of growing a FS is that you have to
choose whether you need the FS to be contiguous or not. The latter
case makes it much more
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 02:15:01PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:anybody done any work on a utility for growing ufs filesystems?
:
:aaron
It has been brought up a couple of times but nobody has tried
to do actually it. Personally, I think it would be a doable
project if
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 02:00:41PM -0700, Aaron Smith wrote:
anybody done any work on a utility for growing ufs filesystems?
I wrote one.
It is place on ftp://ftp.cosmo-project.de/pub/growfs
My tool will grow a UFS filesystem to the current size of the partition.
There is still one big problem
On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 02:15:01PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:anybody done any work on a utility for growing ufs filesystems?
:
:aaron
It has been brought up a couple of times but nobody has tried
to do actually it. Personally, I think it would be a doable
project if
On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 12:13:43AM -0500, David Scheidt wrote:
I had a 3.2 stable (from 30 May 1999)machine panic tonight, trying
to load the oss driver, which is not too shocking. What was shocking
was the damage done to my filesystem. The automatic fsck failed,
with an UNEXPECTED SOFT
On Wed, Jun 09, 1999 at 03:11:23PM +0200, John Andersson wrote:
I seem to have some bad sectors on my vinum volume, fsck reports the
following and does not seem to be able to fix it:
THE FOLLOWING SECTORS COULD NOT BE WRITTEN: 44609178, 44609179,
* FILE SYSTEM STILL DIRTY *
*
On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 12:12:29PM -0700, Justin C. Walker wrote:
It seems there's a need, and the possibility. Would somebody like to
suggest a syntax?
The precedent would be the socket ioctls SIOCGIFHWADDR and
SIOCSIFHWADDR. The Linux emulator suppors the get-only version
On Sat, May 15, 1999 at 12:26:37AM -0700, Steve Rubin wrote:
This is not how Etherchannel works. Anyone from cisco here care to explain
better than I possibly could?
On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 08:28:55PM -0700, John Milford wrote:
You have to have the capibility on the switch, and
301 - 349 of 349 matches
Mail list logo
