On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:32, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > > Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > I've just realised I'm not running a name server at all on my 5.3
> > > > system. I have 4.9 installed on
Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I've just realised I'm not running a name server at all on my 5.3 system.
> > > I have 4.9 installed on this computer too & I'd set up the caching server
> > > o
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:54, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I've just realised I'm not running a name server at all on my 5.3 system.
> > I have 4.9 installed on this computer too & I'd set up the caching server
> > on it, I guess I forgot that step when I installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 23:14, John wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:04:30PM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:23:41AM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:26:16AM +0100, Christian Hiris wrote:
> > > > -BEGIN PG
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:04:30PM -0600, John wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:23:41AM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:26:16AM +0100, Christian Hiris wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
> >
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:23:41AM -0600, John wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:26:16AM +0100, Christian Hiris wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
> >
> > > This is what goes into the log:
> > > Jan 17 18:04:29 pear
Ian Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've just realised I'm not running a name server at all on my 5.3 system. I
> have 4.9 installed on this computer too & I'd set up the caching server on
> it, I guess I forgot that step when I installed 5.3.
> I'll set it up & see that makes any difference
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 07:26:16AM +0100, Christian Hiris wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
>
> > This is what goes into the log:
> > Jan 17 18:04:29 pearl ntpd[838]: ntpd 4.2.0-a Sun Jan 9 10:58:59 CST 2005
> > (1) Jan 17
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:13, Christian Hiris wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 January 2005 07:19, Ian Moore wrote:
> > Now I'm not sure what the best way to get around this would be. I run a
> > caching name server on the machine, so I guess I can tweak it to force
> > localhost.foo.com resolve to 127.0.0.1
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 07:19, Ian Moore wrote:
>
> Now I'm not sure what the best way to get around this would be. I run a
> caching name server on the machine, so I guess I can tweak it to force
> localhost.foo.com resolve to 127.0.0.1
I'm runnin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
> This is what goes into the log:
> Jan 17 18:04:29 pearl ntpd[838]: ntpd 4.2.0-a Sun Jan 9 10:58:59 CST 2005
> (1) Jan 17 18:04:29 pearl ntpd[838]: bind() fd 7, family 2, port 123, addr
> 0.0.0.0,in_clas
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:50, Christian Hiris wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:49:00PM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:22:48PM -0600, John wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:28PM +0900, Rob wrote:
> > > > > Ian Moore wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 05:23, Rob wrote:
> Christian Hiris wrote:
> > On the server ntp.matrix.net I run ntpd with the following config files
> > (This machine still runs 5.3-BETA-4):
> >
> > # cat /etc/rc.conf | grep ntp
> > ntpdate_flags="-b cloc
Christian Hiris wrote:
On the server ntp.matrix.net I run ntpd with the following config files (This
machine still runs 5.3-BETA-4):
# cat /etc/rc.conf | grep ntp
ntpdate_flags="-b clock.netcetera.dk tick.keso.fi"
ntpdate_enable="YES"
ntpd_enable="YES"
- -
No need for "ntpdate -b"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 01:09, John wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:49:00PM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:22:48PM -0600, John wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:28PM +0900, Rob wrote:
> > > > Ian Moore wrote:
> > > >
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:49:00PM -0600, John wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:22:48PM -0600, John wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:28PM +0900, Rob wrote:
> > > Ian Moore wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Ever since I upgraded from 5.2.1-RELEASE to 5.3-RELEASE, I've been
> > > > getting the
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:22:48PM -0600, John wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:28PM +0900, Rob wrote:
> > Ian Moore wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Ever since I upgraded from 5.2.1-RELEASE to 5.3-RELEASE, I've been
> > > getting the
> > > following error on boot:
> > > ntpd[380]: bind() fd 7, famil
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:23:28PM +0900, Rob wrote:
> Ian Moore wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Ever since I upgraded from 5.2.1-RELEASE to 5.3-RELEASE, I've been getting
> > the
> > following error on boot:
> > ntpd[380]: bind() fd 7, family 28, port 123, addr fe80:1
> > ::204:61ff:fe46:be89, in6_is_addr_mu
Ian Moore wrote:
Hi,
Ever since I upgraded from 5.2.1-RELEASE to 5.3-RELEASE, I've been getting the
following error on boot:
ntpd[380]: bind() fd 7, family 28, port 123, addr fe80:1
::204:61ff:fe46:be89, in6_is_addr_multicast=0 flags=0 fails: Can't assign
requested address
ntpd seems to be worki
19 matches
Mail list logo
