FreeBSD 7.4-STABLE server behind an isa server
I am setting up a FreeBSD 7.4 server behind an ISA server. The purpose of this server is to serve as an intranet web server. But I would like to update the ports of course. I have a login and password for the isa server. I would like to know how to implement this so that I can usr portupgrade to update the ports and to use make install excuses for the bad english thanks Jack ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: FreeBSD 7.4-STABLE server behind an isa server
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Jack Raats j...@jarasoft.net wrote: I am setting up a FreeBSD 7.4 server behind an ISA server. The purpose of this server is to serve as an intranet web server. But I would like to update the ports of course. I have a login and password for the isa server. I would like to know how to implement this so that I can usr portupgrade to update the ports and to use make install excuses for the bad english thanks Jack Install www/cntlm from ports, it has a simple config file that you must edit. It authenticates to ISA and listens on a specified local port, you can set http/ftp_proxy to localhost:port and fetch(1) will roll. Regards ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
4-STABLE server crashing
Hello.
As per subject, a 4.11 server of mine started crashing quite often; I
upgraded it to 4-STABLE just in case, but this didn't solve.
I'm attaching three backtraces; can someone give me any hint?
I'm oviously willing to provide any further needed info.
I also checked to see whether the hardware is ok and I think it is,
although I might obviously be wrong.
bye Thanks
av.
1)
IdlePTD at physical address 0x00303000
initial pcb at physical address 0x00275500
panicstr: page fault
panic messages:
---
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address = 0x56e5895d
fault code = supervisor read, page not present
instruction pointer = 0x8:0xc0168bd2
stack pointer = 0x10:0xcf79ef88
frame pointer = 0x10:0xcf79ef9c
code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b
= DPL 0, pres 1, def32 1, gran 1
processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
current process = 1820 (clamscan)
interrupt mask = net tty bio cam
trap number = 12
panic: page fault
syncing disks... 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault virtual address = 0x56e5895d
fault code = supervisor read, page not present
instruction pointer = 0x8:0xc0168bd2
stack pointer = 0x10:0xcf79ecac
frame pointer = 0x10:0xcf79ecc0
code segment= base 0x0, limit 0xf, type 0x1b
= DPL 0, pres 1, def32 1, gran 1
processor eflags= interrupt enabled, resume, IOPL = 0
current process = 1820 (clamscan)
interrupt mask = net tty bio cam
trap number = 12
panic: page fault
Uptime: 9h10m24s
mly0: flushing cache...done
(kgdb) bt
#0 dumpsys () at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:487
#1 0xc0162b87 in boot (howto=260) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:316
#2 0xc0162fac in poweroff_wait (junk=0xc02502ac, howto=-1071317585) at
/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:595
#3 0xc021a9de in trap_fatal (frame=0xcf79ec6c, eva=1457883485) at
/usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:974
#4 0xc021a6b1 in trap_pfault (frame=0xcf79ec6c, usermode=0,
eva=1457883485) at /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:867
#5 0xc021a29b in trap (frame={tf_fs = 16, tf_es = 16, tf_ds = 16,
tf_edi = 4194304, tf_esi = -967207208, tf_ebp = -814093120, tf_isp =
-814093160, tf_ebx = 2,
tf_edx = 3302393, tf_ecx = 1457883477, tf_eax = -968020448,
tf_trapno = 12, tf_err = 0, tf_eip = -1072264238, tf_cs = 8, tf_eflags =
66054, tf_esp = -872433440,
tf_ss = -967207208}) at /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:466
#6 0xc0168bd2 in softclock () at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_timeout.c:102
#7 0xc020dce3 in doreti_swi ()
#8 0xc015d1a9 in acquire (lkp=0xc65996d8, extflags=33554464,
wanted=1536) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_lock.c:147
#9 0xc015d410 in lockmgr (lkp=0xc65996d8, flags=33620002,
interlkp=0xc0288424, p=0xcbffb8e0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_lock.c:355
#10 0xc018ac23 in getblk (vp=0xcf26eec0, blkno=5696, size=4096,
slpflag=0, slptimeo=0) at /usr/src/sys/sys/buf.h:305
#11 0xc01dcfb6 in ffs_sbupdate (mp=0xc1295600, waitfor=2) at
/usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c:1291
#12 0xc01dcbc5 in ffs_sync (mp=0xc1295000, waitfor=2, cred=0xc0a3e800,
p=0xc0288680) at /usr/src/sys/ufs/ffs/ffs_vfsops.c:1052
#13 0xc0193a7b in sync (p=0xc0288680, uap=0x0) at
/usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_syscalls.c:583
#14 0xc01629f4 in boot (howto=256) at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:262
#15 0xc0162fac in poweroff_wait (junk=0xc02502ac, howto=-1071317585) at
/usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:595
#16 0xc021a9de in trap_fatal (frame=0xcf79ef48, eva=1457883485) at
/usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:974
#17 0xc021a6b1 in trap_pfault (frame=0xcf79ef48, usermode=0,
eva=1457883485) at /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:867
#18 0xc021a29b in trap (frame={tf_fs = 16, tf_es = 16, tf_ds = 16,
tf_edi = 4194304, tf_esi = 139654304, tf_ebp = -814092388, tf_isp =
-814092428, tf_ebx = 2,
tf_edx = 3294201, tf_ecx = 1457883477, tf_eax = -968020448,
tf_trapno = 12, tf_err = 0, tf_eip = -1072264238, tf_cs = 8, tf_eflags =
66054, tf_esp = 671833012,
tf_ss = 139654304}) at /usr/src/sys/i386/i386/trap.c:466
#19 0xc0168bd2 in softclock () at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_timeout.c:102
#20 0xc020dce3 in doreti_swi ()
#21 0x2807809e in ?? ()
#22 0x28080acd in ?? ()
#23 0x280811dc in ?? ()
#24 0x280812eb in ?? ()
#25 0x2807f997 in ?? ()
#26 0x2808049e in ?? ()
#27 0x28081033 in ?? ()
#28 0x2808129e in ?? ()
#29 0x804e63f in ?? ()
#30 0x804d90e in ?? ()
#31 0x804f253 in ?? ()
#32 0x804f21b in ?? ()
#33 0x804f21b in ?? ()
#34 0x804f21b in ?? ()
#35 0x804f21b in ?? ()
#36 0x804e5d2 in ?? ()
#37 0x804d260 in ?? ()
#38 0x804bbd9 in ?? ()
#39 0x804c318 in ?? ()
#40 0x80499f6 in ?? ()
2)
IdlePTD at physical address 0x00303000
initial pcb at physical address 0x00275500
panicstr: vm_page_insert: already inserted
panic messages:
---
Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
fault
Re: 4-STABLE server crashing
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:00:37AM +0100, Andrea Venturoli wrote: Hello. As per subject, a 4.11 server of mine started crashing quite often; I upgraded it to 4-STABLE just in case, but this didn't solve. I'm attaching three backtraces; can someone give me any hint? I'm oviously willing to provide any further needed info. I also checked to see whether the hardware is ok and I think it is, although I might obviously be wrong. If it suddenly started for no reason, it's almost certainly failing hardware. Anyway, you'll find it difficult to get anyone to help with 4.11 panics, even if non hardware-related. You should make plans to upgrade to 6.x. Kris pgpG8DrcbGDDD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? In addition to other replies, there is a new article at freebsd.org, Choosing the FreeBSD Version That Is Right For You: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/version-guide/ -- Dmitry Mityugov, St. Petersburg, Russia I ignore all messages with confidentiality statements We live less by imagination than despite it - Rockwell Kent, N by E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/17/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. Another month or two?? Are you a pessimist, or do you just know something I don't know? :-) This page http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/schedule.html says TBD, but I didn't even imagine the delay could be *that* big. -- Dmitry Mityugov, St. Petersburg, Russia I ignore all messages with confidentiality statements We live less by imagination than despite it - Rockwell Kent, N by E ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/17/05, Dmitry Mityugov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/17/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. Another month or two?? Are you a pessimist, or do you just know something I don't know? :-) This page http://www.freebsd.org/releases/6.0R/schedule.html says TBD, but I didn't even imagine the delay could be *that* big. I've been running 6.x on my main desktop since the announce of BETA1 and I think it's ready now! but realistically it's at least a month off schedule based on the schedule you pointed to. BETA1 (15 Jul 2005) to BETA2 (5 Aug 2005) = 21 days. That number, 21days, sounds about right for release testing... so if we use that BETA3 should roll around on the 27th and RC1 on the 17th of September, so some time next month FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE will (should) be here. I don't have any insider info, just experince from past releases. Mañana, the motto for the release engineering team. :-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Nikolas Britton wrote: 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? I expect it should work just fine in 3 years -- when we purchase hardware we expect it to last at least that long, and there's rarely a truly compelling reason to replace the OS on a server. Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. Unfortunately, yeah. 3ware's auto-carving feature (available in 5.4-S) would not work on 4.x as an example. There may be other things, but 4.11 works on relatively standard hardware you can purchase today. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. It depends. I am really concerned about security updates being backported. While I feel I'm probably capable of handling it myself, if I had to, by reviewing patches submitted for later versions, I feel more confident in the patch when it has been peer-reviewed. The fact is that FreeBSD's 4.11 release is scheduled to have patches long past 5.4, and I have to take that into account when making recommendations to our clients. I don't want to have to tell a customer: Install this OS, but in a year, you'll want to install a different OS, and then deal with incompatibilities with the software you've purchased for your sites. The way I see it, every major release of FreeBSD takes some time to reach stability -- the classic be wary of x.0 versions rule applies here as with almost all software. Stable versions for web servers have been (in my experience): FreeBSD 2.2.(something, I don't remember, 5?), 3.2, 4.5. 5's appears to be 5.4, which so far seems to be pretty great, but was only just recently released May 9th and is set to EOL in about 10 months. Anyways, to the OP, it all depends on how long you want this particular solution to be deployed. I'd keep an eye on the security page (of course). There may be a company/set of hackers out there that would be able to backport fixes to FreeBSD 5.4 after it expires, in case you're not able to deploy the most recent version on that date. I do stand by my recommendation of 4.11, because it is the pinnacle before some architectural changes, and if it's anything like 4.5 or 3.2 it should give you years of quality. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stable server
what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? -- Any help would be greatly appreciated. regards, Carstea Catalin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? I'd say 5.4-RELEASE...that's the current production release. -Mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 5.x ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 . ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
Carstea Catalin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? The Handbook recommends against using a stable branch (RELENG_5 or RELENG_4, which might not even compile) without first thoroughly testing the code in your development environment. But if one is going to thoroughly test the code, one might as will use HEAD, except that it is likely to fail and be a waste of time (or your testing is not thorough enough). So it seems to me that one's choice is between thorough testing of RELENG_5 or less thorough testing of RELENG_5_4 or RELENG_4_11. I'll leave it to those with more experience for choosing between the last two, but it sounds like it's a toss-up, with some recommendations being influenced by conservatism or a desire for more 5 testers. :) Another factor (besides testing effort) in the choice between RELENG_5 and RELENG_5_4 is the number of fixes as measured by the time since RELENG_5_4_0_RELEASE. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, dpk wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 . I forgot to mention the other reason I recommend 4.11 first: http://www.freebsd.org/security/index.html 4.11-R is scheduled to receive security updates 8 months longer than 5.4-R, which may be relevant if you want to stick with a specific version for a while. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Stable server
On 8/16/05, dpk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Carstea Catalin wrote: what version of freebsd do u recomand for a stable server? 4.11 is solid, hasn't shown any problems here. 5.4 is the best of the 5.x series but we (I mean at my company, not speaking as a FreeBSD rep) haven't put it through as much stress as we have 4.11 4.x compared to 5.x will always be more stable 5.x compared to 6.x will always be more stable 6.x compared to 7.x will al Do you see a trend? 4.x works now but what about in another year, two years, or three? Try running the last version of 3.x on today's hardware and software, 4.x is already having problems with hardware support. FreeBSD 6 already has a -STABLE and it's first release is just around the corner, It would be unwise to deploy 4.x unless specifically needed If you need to build the next Mars rover or a persons life depends on the system working then use 4.x, If your deploying a new web server or what not you want 5.x, possibly even 6.x if you can wait another month or two. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-current NIS client with -stable server
I have a NIS server running on a -stable machine, and a client running -stable too, everything is all ok Now I'd like to add a new -current machine after I set domainname, rpcbind, and run ypbind I can use ypcat and ypmatch to check if I can connect to the server but if I tried to login to the -current machine, server report error messages as follows : Oct 31 14:41:23 ns1 ypserv[84721]: access to master.passwd.byname denied -- client XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:Y not privileged are NIS on -stable and -current not compatible ? or is there anything I have to set ? -- Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence. --- Edsger W. Dijkstra msg07263/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
