rr232x on amd64: fail to start channel
Hello, I'm trying to setup a PC with an rr2320 SATA RAID controller in it. It's running on an Athlon 64, with FreeBSD cvsupped to RELENG_6 on amd64. On startup, it sees the controller, but gives fail to start channel messages for each channel that has a disk attached. From dmesg | grep rr232x: rr232x: RocketRAID 232x controller driver v1.02 (May 4 2006 06:15:08) rr232x0: sx508x port 0xc000-0xc0ff mem 0xd100-0xd10f irq 11 at device 4.0 on pci3 rr232x: adapter at PCI 3:4:0, IRQ 11 module_register_init: MOD_LOAD (amr_linux, 0x806204f0, 0) error 6 rr232x: start channel [0,0] rr232x: start channel [0,1] rr232x: start channel [0,2] rr232x: start channel [0,3] rr232x: fail to start channel [0,0] rr232x: fail to start channel [0,1] rr232x: fail to start channel [0,2] rr232x: fail to start channel [0,3] rr232x0: [GIANT-LOCKED] Any ideas? A client of mine bought the hardware, and is insistent that we try to use it. It works under Windows, so I'm pretty sure it's not a hardware problem. I'd like to avoid having to run Windows on the server if at all possible. Thanks, Herbert. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Testimonial - Thanks to FreeBSD
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 00:27:24 +0200, Valéry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, starting on mainframe in the middle 80's, i met a dilemn in the later 90's : if you want a job, you must run on Microsoft. Well, i started a new learn of computing on this OS, un-learning all about i knew on computing, a very difficult task when you're coming from IBM... All my friends repeated to me : you should work on Unix like system, you should .. 2 month's ago, i would like to setup my own server, at home, with web, ftp and mail services. I want him robust, efficient, safe and so one. i dreamed to get an old 3090 for 500$ !, but there's no place at home for him :o) Thus, i have started to install my first FreeBSD (on a very special computer) ... 2 weeks later, without any knowledge about Unix like systems, my httpd, ftpd ran (very ?!) well. This mean that your system is well designed and documented. Monitoring access, it's incredible to see that BSD is faster by 2 to 3 than other tested system. and i discovered that computing is absolutely what i learned on IBM .. Great thanks to the community, and your effort to document FreeBSD, even in French (we are so bad with others languages ..!), i hope to help the FreeBSD users by writing some drivers and other things, Welcome to the community! My testimonial to FreeBSD would be that three years ago I was asked to get a mailserver for 1,200 users setup quickly, using Qmail, with a web interface and virus scanning of each and every message. A few days later, I had FreeBSD+Qmail-ldap+Qmailscanner running - and it's still running. In three years, it's had two outages, both hardware related. You really can't beat that. Since then, I've used FreeBSD for fileservers, firewalls, printservers, webservers, database servers, and my desktop at home. I've played with Linux, but the BSD documentation is always more complete, FreeBSD systems seem to consistently take a kicking and come back for more. That, and lists such as this offer really great support. I love FreeBSD. :-) -- Herbert ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Free space wierdness
I have a system running FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE. It primarily functions as a firewall and router, and is generally pretty lightly loaded (load averages around 0.2). It is a low end system (P200, 64mb RAM, 2 gig hard drive), and is generally stable as a rock. The system has drives setup as follows: / 256M (UFS) /usr1.2gb (UFS+Softupdates) (/var and /tmp are linked onto /usr/var and /usr/tmp respectively) This morning I noticed that the / partition was at 108% utilization, and df -h looked like this (approximately): FilesystemSize Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 252M 256M -8M108% / Oddly, du -h -d1 -x showed only a total of 29Mb used on the partition! The output looked like this: su-2.05b# du -h -d1 -x 68K./dev 2.0K./usr 2.7M./stand 1.3M./etc 512B./proc 4.0M./bin 542K./boot 2.0K./mnt 6.4M./modules 30K./root 12M./sbin 4.0K./tmp 4.0K./oldvar 29M. When I rebooted the system (without deleting any files), df -h showed the following: FilesystemSize Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/ad0s1a 252M29M 203M12%/ This is good, since the correct amount of free space now shows, and the server is back to running perfectly. Can anyone shed any light as to why this discrepancy happened in the first place? I'd love to know what I can do to avoid ever having to worry about this again! Thanks, Herbert Wolverson, The Turner Stephenson Group, Inc. http://www.tsghelp.com/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: IM server
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 05:17:30PM -0500, Kenzo wrote: I was wondering what ports there are for an IM server. I looked and only found jabber. I was wondering if anyone installed it and what other IM server can I use in FreeBSD. I want to install a simple IM server only for LAN use. We run Jabber here, and it works beautifully. With the MSNIM, and AOL/ICQ gateways it is possible to talk to just about anyone; I'm not sure if the Yahoo! gateway works now that Yahoo! have closed the Yahoo messenger service. Installation is pretty straightforward, but you will have to edit the jabber XML config file a bit. Jabber.org has good instructions (I recommend using the port to get you started), as well as a set of clients for just about every system out there. -- Herbert. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD tool for network bandwidthmeasure ?
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:34:20PM -0700, dt wrote: Is there any standard (or non) FreeBSD tool that is used to measure a current network throughput/bandwidth? And also, what are the requirements to do so, and do I need to be root to run, or do I need to load a special kernel module? ntop and trafshow from the ports are both very good. They require that you have BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) compiled into the kernel (its there by default, I believe), and read access to /dev/bpf*. By default, only root has that - I sometimes give it to wheel, just so that I don't need to su to root in order to run the monitor. For longer term monitoring, if you install net-snmp and mrtg from the ports you can get nice graphs showing bandwidth usage and trends (as well as use any SNMP monitor program to keep tabs on bandwidth use). IPA (IP Accounting), also in ports, is nice if you need fine grained monitoring - for example monitoring specific services/IPs' bandwidth use over time. It requires that you use count rules in your firewall, and works off there. Hope that helps, Herbert. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail +smtp authentication ?
I want to setup a personal email server for my domain on my frebsd 4.7S box. I've heard great things about qmail. This lead me to wonder about smtp authentication with qmail as I think that would eliminate the open relay problem. is smtp authentication possible with qmail ? What I do is add in an SMTP AUTH patch to the qmail source before installing. (I'm not sure if there is a clean way to do this with the port; make the port, patch in the changes, make again and then make install seems to work but is long winded!). We use Qmail-LDAP here, so I'm not sure which patch works best for a regular Qmail install - but there are several listed on http://www.qmail.org/top.html . A long time ago, I used Mrs Brisby's patch ( http://www.nimh.org/dl/qmail-smtpd.c ) and it worked okay. A friend of mine pointed me at http://www.qmail.org/qmail-auth-20010105.tar.gz - he said it worked for him. Incidentally, if you haven't found it yet, Life With Qmail (available online at http://www.lifewithqmail.com/lwq.html ) is a really excellent guide to getting everything working, and keeping it that way. -- Herbert. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie Firewall Question
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 12:33:47AM +0200, mempheria wrote: Q1: i just setup my first ipfw/with natd firewall :-) i run the preconfigured firewalltype called simple can anyone help me make a ruleset that blocks all to inside (except dhcp from my isp ssh from inside) and allows everything out? outside interface ep0 DHCP inside interface fxp0 192.168.0.1 when i try to learn, and look at the simple configuration ruleset in rc.firewall i go nuts i mean, why is there natd rules? isnt natd transparent? if i block all in it should block all in for natd aswell (?) Answering your last questions first, natd isn't transparent because: - it runs in userland (rather than kernelspace), so it doesn't see anything before the firewall. - the flexibility to not run it, or closely control how it runs is appreciated in many situations (multiple divert rules, for example). In other words, it could be transparent but that would annoy those of us with wierd/complex setups! The trick with natd/ipfw is to realise that as soon as your divert rule runs, you can ignore natd in your firewall rules: after the divert rule, all packets show up with correct endpoints. Generally, that means running natd early. A really basic firewall script to allow outbound traffic and deny inbound would look something like this: --- (snip) # Clear the firewall ipfw flush # Run natd ipfw add divert natd all from any to any via ep0 # Allow established TCP sessions ipfw add allow tcp from any to any established # Allow TCP setup from local to anywhere ipfw add allow tcp from 192.168.0.0/24 to any setup # Allow SSH administration from inside ipfw add allow tcp from 192.168.0.0/24 to me 22 setup # Block all TCP that didn't match the above rules ipfw add deny tcp from any to 192.168.0.0/24 # Allow DNS ipfw add allow udp from any 53 to any ipfw add allow udp from any to any 53 # Allow DHCP ipfw add allow udp from any to any 546 ipfw add allow udp from any to any 547 ipfw add allow udp from any to any 67 ipfw add allow udp from any to any 68 # Block stupid MS UDP traffic ipfw add deny udp from any to any 137-139 # Block low port UDP (safety measure optional) ipfw deny udp from any to 192.168.0.0/24 1-1024 # Allow all udp (I generally don't do this!) ipfw add allow udp from any to any # Allow all icmp ipfw add allow icmp from any to any --- (snip) This is from memory, so there may be something wrong with it. I strongly recommend taking a look at the FreeBSD cheat sheets, http://www.mostgraveconcern.com/freebsd/ , the handbook at freebsd.org, man ipfw, and man natd. Q2: What means by statefull inspection? i guess ipfw doesnt have suport for that. Stateful inspection means that the firewall keeps state - in other words, it remembers which connections are supposed to be allowed, rather than taking the protocol's word for it; that way it can't be tricked into allowing certain scans that work by faking the established flag in TCP connections. ipfw has had this for a long time! (see man ipfw for details) A non-stateful ruleset to allow only outgoing TCP traffic: ipfw add allow tcp from any to any established ipfw add allow tcp from 192.168.0.0/24 to any setup ipfw add deny tcp from any to any A stateful version of the same thing: ipfw add check-state ipfw add allow tcp from 192.168.0.0/24 to any setup keep-state ipfw add deny tcp from any to any The first set of rules will allow any TCP packet market as being part of an ongoing connection, and can be tricked into allowing certain scans as a result. The second set automagically adds an ipfw rule for each connection that passes the keep-state rule - in this case, any TCP connection setup originating in the local subnet. Scans that attempt to get in because they are marked established fail, because check-state doesn't see a rule created by a matching outbound connection. Note that there is a performance hit for using stateful rules. It isn't huge, but for a busy firewall it is noticable. Also note that natd and check-state/keep-state don't like one another. FreeBSD has two other firewalls (pf and ipf) to try if you really need this functionality (you almost certainly don't!). -- Herbert. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SMP for FreeBSD
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 04:40:53PM -0500, Jamie wrote: I have a dual processor system and I am running version 4.8 RELEASE. In order to take advantage of both processors, do I need to do anything special when I compile software, like Sendmail? Or, does FreeBSD handle that itself? As long as you have SMP support compiled into your kernel, FreeBSD does the rest. -- Herbert. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
