On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
snip
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 04:56:20PM +0300, ?? ?? typed:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri
2010/3/18 Ruben de Groot mai...@bzerk.org
As others have said, it's a RELEASE candidate. But this kernel it's running
was compiled earlier this month (March 5).
Ruben
It is OK, course I have compiled my own kernel by commenting-out unused
devices in GENERIC kernconf-file. Sources was
18 марта 2010 г. 10:49 пользователь Tim Judd taj...@gmail.com написал:
On 3/17/10, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4: Fri Mar 5 01:37:03 MSK
2010 r...@myhost.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERN
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:56:20 +0300, Антон Клесс
antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I
saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed
FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
2010/3/17 Bas v.d. Wiel b...@kompasmedia.nl
On Wed, 17 Mar
On 17/03/2010 14:45, Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
2010/3/17 Bas
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
If it works, do not fix it!
Actually,
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17.03.2010 18:03, Bas v.d. Wiel wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:36:38 +0100, Mikolaj Rydzewski m...@ceti.pl wrote:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is
production
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Антон Клесс antoniok@gmail.com wrote:
I have the server that's running FreeBSD for the last few years, but I saw
it only year ago and know nothing about when and how was installed FreeBSD
on it.
# uname -a
FreeBSD myhost.net 6.2-RC1 FreeBSD 6.2-RC1 #4:
Антон Клесс wrote:
That is what I suspected for.
What is the most safe way to upgrade it, remembering that this is production
server and I have to keep it working properly?
6.2-RC1 - 6.2 RELEASE - 7.2 RELEASE - 8.0 RELEASE, or somehow in this
style?
Depending on what your requirements for
2010/3/17 Ricardo Jesus ricardo.meb.je...@gmail.com
It should be 6.2-RC1 - 6.2 - 6.4 - 7.2 - 8.0
Dont' think freebsd-update supports 6.2 (AFAIR it supports from 6.4
onwards), so you probably will have to use csup.
freebsd-update was available from 6.2, so there is a good chance it should
be
On 10/28/05, Micah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Kirchner wrote:
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable,
Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Consider diff'ing the
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Micah wrote:
In other words, it's not file that broken, but /every/ executable
on the broken machine is broken. Now why would that be? A
compiler flag or something?
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks through
David Kirchner wrote:
On 10/27/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything in
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help
me to know subj?
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
I don't mean to
On 10/26/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/26/05, Will Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
(uses shared libs), stripped
Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared anything about
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
(FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
(uses shared libs), stripped
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
file /usr/bin/man
on my machine outputs:
/usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version
1 (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on
different versions without COMPAT* in the
kernel?
One can always carefully examine the output
of ldd, readelf and other such tools, but that
requires much knowledge and a small lab
with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a
better way?
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
One can always carefully examine the output of ldd, readelf and
other such tools, but that requires much knowledge and a small
I really believe the choose would depend on your requirements and your
experience. If you are new to open source Unix-like environment then you
should not use either in version in a production environment unless you can
afford the cost associated with learning a new system. Do not under
I'm looking at getting a 3ware Escalade 7006 or 8006 RAID controller for
one of my servers. The machine presently runs RELENG_4_8. The twe man
page for that version doesn't list the 7000 or 8000 series controllers.
However, 3ware lists 4.8 as the supported version of FreeBSD for both.
Which is
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to
freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL...
But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported
for a long time.. what version should we take then?
We will be using it for multiple servers (mail, database, app,
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote:
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to
freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL...
But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported
for a long time.. what version should we take then?
Looks
On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 12:54:56AM +0200, lists wrote:
Currently were going to reinstall all servers we have from redhat 9 to
freebsd because redhat 9 is EOL...
But after reading a few mails here that 4.9 is most likely not supported
for a long time.. what version should we take then?
36 matches
Mail list logo
