Geoff Buckingham wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 01:12:45AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Yes. Limit the number of CG bitmaps you examine simultaneously,
and make the operation multiple pass over the disk. This is not
that hard a modification to fsck, and it can be done fairly
quickly by
Hi,
I recently took one of our machines off the main network and set up a
crossover cable between it and my personal box. I was looking to scp
some large files over and I didn't want to swamp the network. (I use scp
from force of habit, even though ftp would probably be quicker in this
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:32:52AM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
Anyone else see this type of thing before? I did some research on the
lists but all I ever saw was a problem with reading resolv.conf. That's
not the case here, because it's definitely picking up the nameserver
from that
David Schultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From my brief research on the subject, the FreeBSD community
has been highly resistant to supporting third party filesystems
precisely because nobody with such needs as yours has ever
contributed the code necessary to make third party filesystem
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 10:32:52AM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
Anyone else see this type of thing before? I did some research on the
lists but all I ever saw was a problem with reading resolv.conf. That's
not the case here, because it's definitely picking up the
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
That much I know. I was just wondering why the daemon is trying DNS
lookup when the IP in question is listed in /etc/hosts. I thought
listings in /etc/hosts would supercede the need for a DNS lookup. Of
course, I could be
Ted Faber wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
That much I know. I was just wondering why the daemon is trying DNS
lookup when the IP in question is listed in /etc/hosts. I thought
listings in /etc/hosts would supercede the need for a DNS lookup. Of
course,
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:29:10PM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
Ted Faber wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
That much I know. I was just wondering why the daemon is trying DNS
lookup when the IP in question is listed in /etc/hosts.
If you haven't
On 2003.09.05 12:29:10 -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
Ted Faber wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:04:04PM -0400, Dwayne MacKinnon wrote:
That much I know. I was just wondering why the daemon is trying DNS
lookup when the IP in question is listed in /etc/hosts. I thought
listings in
Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
Do you use Privilege Separation? That can give interesting results with
DNS due to chroot into /var/empty... see the mailing lists archives.
Argh. This frustrates me. I did some searching on various mailing lists
before, and when they talked about switching into
Hello.
I'm trying to make a BSD system from a bootable CD. I don't need
anything fancy, just a shell and a few basic commands. I have the
structure of the CD in line. My problem is with the boot image.
I've read the FAQ on bootable CDs with mkisofs, and I did what it
said: use the format
MacMan20001 wrote:
Hello.
I'm trying to make a BSD system from a bootable CD. I don't need
anything fancy, just a shell and a few basic commands. I have the
structure of the CD in line. My problem is with the boot image.
I've read the FAQ on bootable CDs with mkisofs, and I did what it said:
Ted Faber wrote:
I'll bet that the problem is with the format of your /etc/hosts . Check
out the man page (man 5 hosts) and plink with it until it does what you
want. Sometimes the lookups through /etc/hosts are counterintuitive -
for example I've had problems related to the order of names and
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:43:53PM -0400, Richard Coleman wrote:
I figured that nsswitch.conf would deprecate host.conf. Is this not true?
On 5.x I think you're right. On 4.x it still is host.conf. (Or there
is no nsswicth.conf installed by default and no manual pages - I haven't
dug hard.)
You would rather use -b with --no-emul-boot. The --no-emul-boot
flags the boot image as a raw executable rather than a floppy image.
The /boot/cdboot loader is specifically designed for this use.
Alright, I got a boot. It complained about the absence of a loader,
but that's expected from a
[Warning: semi-useless information ahead]
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 11:06:15AM +, Geoff Buckingham wrote:
However I just read the newfs man page and am intrigued to know what effect
the -g and -h options have
Somewhere in -STABLE between 4.8-RELEASE and a month or so ago I recreated
a
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003, David Gilbert wrote:
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius
Poul-Henning writes:
fsck problem should be gone with less inodes and less blocks since
if I read the code correctly, memory is
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius
Poul-Henning writes:
fsck problem should be gone with less inodes and less blocks since
if I read the code correctly, memory is consumed according to used
inodes and blocks so
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Gilbert writes:
That reminds me... has anyone thought of designing the system to have
more than 8 frags per block? Increasingly, for large file
performance, we're pushing up the block size dramatically. This is
with the assumption that large disks will
David Gilbert wrote:
Poul-Henning == Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Poul-Henning I am not sure I would advocate 64k blocks yet.
Poul-Henning I tend to stick with 32k block, 4k fragment myself.
That reminds me... has anyone thought of designing the system to have
more than 8
FYI,
Doug
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 06:03:15 -0700
From: Rodney Joffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: UltraDNS Corp
Subject: Important changes to the .org tld today.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
During the root zone (.) update later
21 matches
Mail list logo
