On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:18:40PM +, - wrote:
> I don't see savecore being run on boot. I manually ran it and it said:
> savecore: No dumps found.
>
>
> The panics are something along panic: ain't going nowhere without my
> init! (I'm forcing these by sending lots of unknown signals to ini
I don't see savecore being run on boot. I manually ran it and it said:
savecore: No dumps found.
The panics are something along panic: ain't going nowhere without my
init! (I'm forcing these by sending lots of unknown signals to init)
The other (real) panics are random (process-wise). I don't ha
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 07:00:47PM +, - wrote:
>Hi,
>
> I Have a server that keeps panicking when under some load, and I need to
> understand where the problem is. I've built a kernel with makeoptions
> DEBUG=-g, DDB, DDB_UNATTENDED. I've added dumpdev="/dev/ad3s1b" to
> rc.conf. But st
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:02:19AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> Enable crashdumps by setting dumpdev="/path/to/swap/slice" in rc.conf,
> wait for the system to crash again, then use the dump to get a stack
> trace, and post that.
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/advanced.html#KE
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 10:02:19AM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote:
> Enable crashdumps by setting dumpdev="/path/to/swap/slice" in rc.conf,
> wait for the system to crash again, then use the dump to get a stack
> trace, and post that.
> http://www.FreeBSD.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/advanced.html#KE
In the last episode (Nov 23), Piotr Gnyp said:
> after upgrade from 5.2.1 o 5.3-STABLE my system started to reboot on
> regular basis. The error message on screen (not always showing):
>
> Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
> cpuid = 0; apic id=03
> fault virtual address = 0x1c
> fault
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:38:50AM -0600, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> you rebuild your ports (screen) after you updated from 5.2.1?
Yes. In fact, i did it again a while ago. I`ll check if the error will occur
again.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http:/
Piotr Gnyp wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:06:44AM -0600, Nikolas Britton wrote:
The first problem is your trying to run 5.3-STABLE. the -STABLE tag does
NOT mean the system will be stable it mean the code base is relatively
stable compared to -CURRENT. Until FreeBSD 5.x matures a bit more (
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:06:44AM -0600, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> The first problem is your trying to run 5.3-STABLE. the -STABLE tag does
> NOT mean the system will be stable it mean the code base is relatively
> stable compared to -CURRENT. Until FreeBSD 5.x matures a bit more (maybe
> after
Piotr Gnyp wrote:
Hi,
after upgrade from 5.2.1 o 5.3-STABLE my system started to reboot on regular
basis. The error message on screen (not always showing):
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 0; apic id=03
fault virtual address = 0x1c
fault code = supervisor write, page not prese
I played with disable the acpi. And only after I deinstall the
apache2, my top shows normal output. I don't have a clue why.
Regards,
Chen
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 20:05:24 +1300, Gareth Redman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> \
>
> I don't think it is normal, as even the idle state is at 0.00%. I
> would mak
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:06:09 +0530, Subhro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:21 -0400, Chen Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am running 5.3-stable. since 5.3RC1, my CPU status from `top` show
> > all zeros, like this. Can anyone tell me what is wrong?
>
> What makes you fee
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:10:21 -0400, Chen Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am running 5.3-stable. since 5.3RC1, my CPU status from `top` show
> all zeros, like this. Can anyone tell me what is wrong?
What makes you feel that something is wrong? If the processes are not
using the processor I would
On Oct 18, 2004, at 10:18 PM, Vonleigh Simmons wrote:
Sorry to hijack the thread. My box is running 5.2, and I'd like to
upgrade it to 5.2.1. Problem is that the server is in a colo so I only
have SSH access to it; because of this I can't drop into single user
mode.
So far I grabbed the stabl
> -Original Message-
> From: Vonleigh Simmons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 4:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: 5.3-STABLE
>
>
> Sorry, forgot to add that I did do a cvsup before the make buildworld.
>
> >
gh Simmons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: 5.3-STABLE
The relationship between the most commonly used CVS tags and OS
versions is like this at the moment:
snip...
RELENG_5_25.2.1-RELEASE-p11
RELENG_5_3
Vonleigh Simmons wrote:
Sorry to hijack the thread. My box is running 5.2, and I'd like to
upgrade it to 5.2.1.
Problem is that the server is in a colo so I only have SSH access to
it; because of this
I can't drop into single user mode.
So far I grabbed the stable sup file, changed it to
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:18:51 -0700, Vonleigh Simmons
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry to hijack the thread. My box is running 5.2, and I'd like to
> upgrade it to 5.2.1. Problem is that the server is in a colo so I only
> have SSH access to it; because of this I can't drop into single
Sorry, forgot to add that I did do a cvsup before the make buildworld.
The relationship between the most commonly used CVS tags and OS
versions is like this at the moment:
snip...
RELENG_5_25.2.1-RELEASE-p11
RELENG_5_35.3-RC1 (not official yet)
Sorry to hijack the threa
The relationship between the most commonly used CVS tags and OS
versions is like this at the moment:
snip...
RELENG_5_25.2.1-RELEASE-p11
RELENG_5_35.3-RC1 (not official yet)
Sorry to hijack the thread. My box is running 5.2, and I'd like to
upgrade it to 5.2.1. Problem
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 02:49:38PM +0200, h wrote:
> On Monday 18 October 2004 09:56, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > No -- that's expected. Once the RELENG_5_3 branch was created, the
> > RELENG_5 branch would be relabeld as -STABLE. Note that these are
> > just technical changes to the CVS repository
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 14:49:38 +0200, h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> if 5.3 hits the -STABLE tag does that mean my 4.*-STABLE boxes are going to
> download the 5.*-STABLES sources or are they safe with their tag ?
You need to read the manuals.
Regards
S.
--
Subhro Sankha Kar
School of Informa
On Monday 18 October 2004 09:56, Matthew Seaman wrote:
> No -- that's expected. Once the RELENG_5_3 branch was created, the
> RELENG_5 branch would be relabeld as -STABLE. Note that these are
> just technical changes to the CVS repository and that all they do is
> presage the actual release/launc
* Matthew Seaman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [20041018 10:58]: wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:44:31AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
> >
> > I installed 5.3Beta7 on a box I have here. I have UPDATED the box
> > twice now using cvsup, and using:
> >
> > *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5
> >
> >
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 10:44:31AM +0300, Odhiambo Washington wrote:
>
> I installed 5.3Beta7 on a box I have here. I have UPDATED the box
> twice now using cvsup, and using:
>
> *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_5
>
>
> Now, the output of `uname -a` says the box is:
>
>
> FreeBSD sqlserve.wana
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 11:19:31PM -0400, Matt Juszczak wrote:
> Is it bad for a production server to maintain 5.3 stable vs. release?
See the handbook for discussion of this issue.
Kris
pgprWuPpeU4oY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:11:26AM +0900, Choy Kho Yee wrote:
> On 2004/10/18, at 2:11, Radek Kozlowski wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Mark Frank wrote:
> >>Yesterday I did a fresh install off of a 5.3beta5 CD and them before
> >>going to bed last night I cvsup'ed with a "*d
On 2004/10/18, at 2:11, Radek Kozlowski wrote:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Mark Frank wrote:
Yesterday I did a fresh install off of a 5.3beta5 CD and them before
going to bed last night I cvsup'ed with a "*default release=cvs
tag=RELENG_5" and a buildworld/buildkernel/installkernel cy
On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 12:58:15PM -0400, Mark Frank wrote:
> Yesterday I did a fresh install off of a 5.3beta5 CD and them before
> going to bed last night I cvsup'ed with a "*default release=cvs
> tag=RELENG_5" and a buildworld/buildkernel/installkernel cycle.
>
> I had expected to end up with 5
On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 00:29, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 10:35:38AM -0700, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> > Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
> >
> > Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I
> > worry about upgrading to BETA5 or
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:35:38 -0700, Curtis Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
>
> Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I
> worry about upgrading to BE
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 10:35:38AM -0700, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
>
> Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I
> worry about upgrading to BETA5 or just wait till it goes stable?
Updating to BETA5 (and repo
I just finishing installing 5.3. I was going to compose an email saying how well
it worked for me. Appending to this thread seems applicable.
I have a 9 year old Dell Inspiron 7500. With 5.1 and 5.2 I had issues with the
ACPI (Intel's gift to the work, I am told) and the ep driver, so I had to dro
Curtis Vaughan wrote:
Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I
worry about upgrading to BETA5 or just wait till it goes stable?
Curtis
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html
Kevin Kinsey
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 10:35:38AM -0700, Curtis Vaughan wrote:
> Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html
> Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I
> worry about upgrading to BETA5 or just wait
Curtis Vaughan wrote:
Isn't 5.3 supposed to be going stable here soon? Any time line?
Also, since I have 5.3-BETA1 and I see it's at 5.3-BETA5, should I worry
about upgrading to BETA5 or just wait till it goes stable?
Curtis
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/schedule.html
--
Best regards,
Ch
36 matches
Mail list logo
