On 4/1/06, J. Buck Caldwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unison is your answer. I've been using it to synchronize the data on 20
branch servers with the big corporate server for backup onto one big
tape drive every night for the last two years. Email me if you need help
setting it up.
Daniel O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sunday 02 April 2006 05:20, Lars Cleary wrote:
Why don't you just use gmirror(8) and do software RAID 1?
IMHO a controller just for RAID 1 is unnecessary,
as the OS together with a reasonable motherboards disk controller
is just as fast as any
Tenebrae [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Matthias Andree wrote:
RAID1 is _not_ a backup, but an availability aid.
If going for RAID1, be sure to add a backup solution.
More to think about...thank you.
I am trying to get some peace of mind on a budget, though. I suppose I
Scott,
There's something strange with this release.
Yesterday it worked fantastic, better than the FreeBSD 6.1-PRERELEASE.
Today it refuses to start :-)
Jack
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 13:25:59 -0700
Scott Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of SEVENTY-SEVEN
Woah there - does that
Hi!
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 09:48:21AM +0100, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of SEVENTY-SEVEN
Woah there - does that mean that 1.1.6 might be out soon too ?
That
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 01:07:42PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 16:34:25 +0200
From: Mathieu Prevot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
I have a RELENG_6/AMD64 with an AMD64X2 cpu, 1GB of memory, 512MB swap.
I remarked that when I run 2
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:02:38PM +0200 I heard the voice of
Patrick M. Hausen, and lo! it spake thus:
That will be 1.1.5.2, of course. RELENG_1 is in maintenance mode,
now.
Y'know, I DO have a box running RELENG_2_1_0...
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:48, Matthias Andree wrote:
You can't boot off a system with a dead primary disk with software RAID1.
(well you MIGHT but.. in any case RAID1 cards are quite cheap)
It's a matter of the BIOS:
will it complain, or will it proceed to the next SATA disk?
Yes indeed.
Hello!
We have an amd64 machine with an nVidia3 SATA controller on motherboard.
The drive just came from the manufacturer and the self-tests initiated
via smartctl show no problems:
atapci1: nVidia nForce3 Pro SATA150 controller port
Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within FreeBSD
jails:
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/stable/2005-04/0837.html
At the time (and to date) I reported that I was running several PostgreSQL
daemons, all on the same port, using FreeBSD 4.x, and all
Hi,
Got this interesting hang on a two way (two physical cpus with htt
disabled by machdep.hyperthreading_allowed) smp box during boot. Any
ideas?
Kernel config is pretty much SMP with most drivers cut and KDB, DDB
and BREAK_TO_DEBUGGER added. Sources are from this morning.
I can only reproduce
Hi this is a problem that occured on freebsd5.x as well. Box running
6.0-release.
after a configure as a non root user and typing make I get permission denied.
ezbounce-1.50-pre8 # make
make: Permission denied
ezbounce-1.50-pre8 # which make
/usr/bin/make
ezbounce-1.50-pre8 # ls -l
Daniel O'Connor writes:
On Sunday 02 April 2006 17:48, Matthias Andree wrote:
You can't boot off a system with a dead primary disk with software RAID1.
(well you MIGHT but.. in any case RAID1 cards are quite cheap)
It's a matter of the BIOS:
will it complain, or will it proceed
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within FreeBSD
jails:
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/stable/2005-04/0837.html
At the time (and to date) I reported that I was running several
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 08:34:58PM +0200, Pawel Worach wrote:
Hi,
Got this interesting hang on a two way (two physical cpus with htt
disabled by machdep.hyperthreading_allowed) smp box during boot. Any
ideas?
Stick to 4BSD until a ULE maintainer comes forward and fixes the known
bugs.
Kris
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of SEVENTY-SEVEN
months of tireless work by the FreeBSD developers, users, their children,
and their pets.
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within FreeBSD
jails:
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/stable/2005-04/0837.html
At the time (and to date) I
I may need to build a box with a RAID 5 array.
After checking the OpenBSD pages for their bioctl's
driver support. Because I really prefer open drivers,
and bioctl seems to be coming Pretty Soon Now to FreeBSD too.
And their bioctl supports the AMI driver
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:32:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within FreeBSD
jails:
Holger Kipp wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of SEVENTY-SEVEN
months of tireless work by the FreeBSD developers, users, their
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:32:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Back in April '05, someone posted a thread about PostgreSQL within FreeBSD
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:54:32PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 04:32:31PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 02:55:39PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Back in
On Apr 2, 2006, at 12:22, Holger Kipp wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 01:25:59PM -0700, Scott Long wrote:
It is my great pleasure and privilege to announce the availability of
FreeBSD 2.2.9-RELEASE. This release is the culmination of SEVENTY-
SEVEN
months of tireless work by the FreeBSD
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Right, but why are they doing it *consistently* in FreeBSD 6.x, when they
never did it in FreeBSD 4.x? I have postmaster processes running on the
FreeBSD box as far back as November 27th, 2005 ... and have *never*
experienced this problem ... so it
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 05:24:10PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Right, but why are they doing it *consistently* in FreeBSD 6.x, when they
never did it in FreeBSD 4.x? I have postmaster processes running on the
FreeBSD box as far back as November
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Hello!
We have an amd64 machine with an nVidia3 SATA controller on motherboard.
The drive just came from the manufacturer and the self-tests initiated
via smartctl show no problems:
atapci1: nVidia nForce3 Pro SATA150 controller port
Hello Colin,
Saturday, April 1, 2006, 2:43:13 PM, you wrote:
Look at the date on Scott's email. :-)
Yeah, It's all wrong he set his clock 7 years into the future.
--
Best regards,
Derekmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.takeda.tk
-- RAM disk is *not* an
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Look at IpcSemaphoreCreate and InternalIpcSemaphoreCreate in
src/backend/port/sysv_sema.c. It may be worth stepping through them
with gdb to see what the semget calls are returning.
BTW, even before doing that, you should look at ipcs -s output
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, even before doing that, you should look at ipcs -s output to try
to get a clue what's going on. The EINVAL failures may be because the
second postmaster to start deletes the semaphores created by the first
On Monday 03 April 2006 04:39, George Hartzell wrote:
With raid systems that use proprietary metadata I'd need to find a
similar controller to hook them up to.
Actually no..
If you are using a cheap RAID like Promise TX2 or just about any onboard
IDE/SATA RAID that FreeBSD supports the array
Daniel O'Connor writes:
On Monday 03 April 2006 04:39, George Hartzell wrote:
With raid systems that use proprietary metadata I'd need to find a
similar controller to hook them up to.
Actually no..
If you are using a cheap RAID like Promise TX2 or just about any onboard
IDE/SATA
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
BTW, even before doing that, you should look at ipcs -s output to try
to get a clue what's going on. The EINVAL failures may be because the
second postmaster to start deletes
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
OK, could we see strace (or whatever BSD calls it) output for the second
postmaster? I'd like to see exactly what results it's getting for the
kernel calls it makes during IpcSemaphoreCreate.
'k, dont' know what
Sent offlist ...
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
OK, could we see strace (or whatever BSD calls it) output for the second
postmaster? I'd like to see exactly what results it's getting for the
kernel calls it
Daniel O'Connor wrote:
On Monday 03 April 2006 04:39, George Hartzell wrote:
With raid systems that use proprietary metadata I'd need to find a
similar controller to hook them up to.
Actually no..
If you are using a cheap RAID like Promise TX2 or just about any onboard
IDE/SATA RAID that
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Tenebrae wrote:
I was looking at the Adaptec Serial ATA II RAID 1420SA and Promise
FastTrak TX4300 4-port SATA RAID PCI adapters. I did find a note on the
Promise card that it is now supported in Current. Is this something that
might make its way into the 6.x-STABLE
Hello!
We have an amd64 machine with an nVidia3 SATA controller on motherboard.
[...]
ad6: WARNING - WRITE_DMA UDMA ICRC error (retrying request) LBA=249306496
ad6: WARNING - WRITE_DMA UDMA ICRC error (retrying request) LBA=261467776
ad6: WARNING - WRITE_DMA48 UDMA ICRC error (retrying
On Monday 03 April 2006 12:00, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
If you are using a cheap RAID like Promise TX2 or just about any onboard
IDE/SATA RAID that FreeBSD supports the array can be used on ANY system.
(Except for booting)
More concisely, is this because said cheap RAID controllers all use
Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'k, try this one ... looks better, actually has semget() calls in it :)
OK, here's our problem:
84250: semget(0x52e2c1,0x11,0x780) ERR#17 'File exists'
This is InternalIpcSemaphoreCreate failing because of key collision.
As it should.
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I venture that FBSD 6 has decided to return ESRCH (no such process)
where FBSD 4 returned some other error that acknowledged that the
process did exist (EPERM would be a reasonable guess).
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally hides the
existence of the other process, and therefore having
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
their change. They do not have kernel behavior that totally
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own SysV
semaphore key space, else information leaks anyway.
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story, then FBSD have broken their system and must revert
their change. They do
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:26:52PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I have no objection to doing that, so long as you are actually doing it
correctly. This example shows that each jail must have its own
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/48471
[kernel] [patch] new feature: private IPC for every jail
Its an ancient, 4.x patch for having private IPC in a jail ... not sure
how hard it would be to bring it up to 6.x / -current standards though ...
but it seems like something 'good'
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
No-one is taking a position of being uninterested, so please don't
be hasty to reciprocate.
I just posted it off the -hackers list, but there is an ancient patch in
the FreeBSD queue for implementing Private IPCs for Jails ... not sure why
it was
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:30:58AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:17:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:08:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
If this is the story, then
Here is dmes.boot and pciconf output on FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE.
Boot takes 3-4 minutes after da0: 140014MB (286749488 512 byte sectors:
255H 63S/T 17849C) line and continues.
I will try to upgrade again to 6.1-PRERELEASE later today. I did before
and the problem still was there.
dmesg.boot:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 11:41:01PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:30:58AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
'k, but how do I fix kill so that it has the proper behaviour if SysV is
enabled?
Check the source, perhaps there's already a way. If not, talk to
whoever
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:56:57PM +0900, Ganbold wrote:
Here is dmes.boot and pciconf output on FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE.
Boot takes 3-4 minutes after da0: 140014MB (286749488 512 byte sectors:
255H 63S/T 17849C) line and continues.
I will try to upgrade again to 6.1-PRERELEASE later today. I did
taking it off of pgsql-hackers, so that we don't annoy them unnecessarily
...
'k, looking at the code, not that most of it doesn't go over my head ...
but ...
in kern/kern_jail.c, I can see the prison_check() call ... wouldn't one
want to make the change a bit further up? say in
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:23:59AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
taking it off of pgsql-hackers, so that we don't annoy them unnecessarily
...
'k, looking at the code, not that most of it doesn't go over my head ...
but ...
in kern/kern_jail.c, I can see the prison_check() call ...
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:23:59AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
taking it off of pgsql-hackers, so that we don't annoy them unnecessarily
...
'k, looking at the code, not that most of it doesn't go over my head ...
but ...
in kern/kern_jail.c, I
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:56:57PM +0900, Ganbold wrote:
Here is dmes.boot and pciconf output on FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE.
Boot takes 3-4 minutes after da0: 140014MB (286749488 512 byte sectors:
255H 63S/T 17849C) line and continues.
I will try to upgrade again to
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 02:27:31PM +0900, Ganbold wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:56:57PM +0900, Ganbold wrote:
Here is dmes.boot and pciconf output on FreeBSD-6.0-RELEASE.
Boot takes 3-4 minutes after da0: 140014MB (286749488 512 byte sectors:
255H 63S/T 17849C)
I must have missed something here. What's the problem that causes
contigmalloc to be called here? If this is to do with 4GB of memory, that
was fixed in -CURRENT over a month ago.
-Original Message-
From: Ganbold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2006 10:28 PM
To: Kris
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:57:17AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Andrew Thompson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 01:23:59AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
in kern/kern_jail.c, I can see the prison_check() call ... wouldn't one
want to make the change a bit further up?
59 matches
Mail list logo
