On 6. sep. 2006, at 18.03, Anish Mistry wrote:
Previously posted to -questions:
In my quest to get asterisk+iaxmodem+hylafax working together in a
jail I've run into one final roadblock. I can't seem to figure out
how to create a symbolic link (ln -s doesn't work) in /dev in the
jail
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Obviously if your array
is RAID10, the 180MB/s is very good!
Also unlikely - RAID10 with 5 disks?? - brain fade - sorry.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
Hi,
I just installed 6.1 on my new (with old parts) machine and when
booting for the first time after installation I got this panic:
ad0: 19130MB SAMSUNG SV2001H QN200-03 at ata0-master UDMA100
Fatal trap 18: integer divide fault while in kernel mode
cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
instruction
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Obviously if your array
is RAID10, the 180MB/s is very good!
Also unlikely - RAID10 with 5 disks?? - brain fade - sorry.
RAID5 with 5 disks ( 6 with hot swap ).
Steve
This e.mail is private and
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Just out of interest what RAID level was the 5 disk array? - as
180Mb/s from an Areca 5 disk RAID0 or RAID5 array is not that good -
my old 3Ware 7506 with 4 Maxtor IDE RAID0 gets 175Mb/s. Obviously if
your array is RAID10, the 180MB/s is very good!
If you are using
regarding the gmirror issue, I've seen the following cvs commit:
Revision 1.66.2.9 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Fri Sep 8
17:39:41 2006 UTC (20 hours, 35 minutes ago) by pjd
Branch: RELENG_6
Changes since 1.66.2.8: +5 -12 lines
Diff to previous 1.66.2.8 (colored) to
On 9/9/06, Joao Barros [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I just installed 6.1 on my new (with old parts) machine and when
booting for the first time after installation I got this panic:
ad0: 19130MB SAMSUNG SV2001H QN200-03 at ata0-master UDMA100
Fatal trap 18: integer divide fault while in
On Saturday 09 September 2006 13:56, Joao Barros wrote:
Hi,
I just installed 6.1 on my new (with old parts) machine and when
booting for the first time after installation I got this panic:
ad0: 19130MB SAMSUNG SV2001H QN200-03 at ata0-master UDMA100
Fatal trap 18: integer divide fault
This is not cool folks.
Anyone know what I have to roll back to - and what files I have to roll back -
to stop this [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tty ad4 ad6twed0 cpu
tin tout KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s KB/t tps MB/s us ni sy in id
224 453
Hi!
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 12:38:13PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
This is not cool folks.
...
I experienced the same problem - luckily on a lab machine.
As much as I understand your anger, -stable is not guaranteed
bug free.
And to answer your question: RELENG_6_1 doesn't show this
On Saturday 09 September 2006 19:38, Karl Denninger wrote:
This is not cool folks.
Want a refund?
--
/\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/ \ ASCII Ribbon
is gone, but a new error message appears as often as the former,
and under the same circumstances:
mpt0: QUEUE_FULL: Bus 0x00 Target 0x00 Depth 128
--
Alex
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
Oops- mangled reply.
On 9/9/06, Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is gone, but a new error message appears as often as the former,
and under the same circumstances:
mpt0: QUEUE_FULL: Bus 0x00 Target 0x00 Depth 128
Do you see these all the time? If so I'll have to connect up some
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when changes
are MFC'd into production branches of the code. This kind of thing is
expected if you're running -CURRENT, but not -STABLE.
How long would it have
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 01:28:31PM -0500, Karl Denninger wrote:
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when changes
are MFC'd into production branches of the code. This kind of thing is
expected if
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 04:26:52PM +0200, Volker wrote:
One feature request on gmirror:
If a system comes up and more than one mirror is out of sync,
currently gmirror tries (in automatic mode) to re-sync all providers
at the same time which slows down the system.
When gmirror tries to do
On 9/9/06, Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try to get a dump, trace, or at least figure out which function
the IP is refering to?
Well, the problem only occurs when I boot from the disk and the
installed kernel doesn't have debug support.
Does 'set dumpdev=' work from the boot
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 09:02:35PM +0100, Joao Barros wrote:
On 9/9/06, Max Laier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try to get a dump, trace, or at least figure out which function
the IP is refering to?
Well, the problem only occurs when I boot from the disk and the
installed kernel
I set up a new server recently and transferred all the information from
my old server over. At the time it appeared there where no problems. I
just tried to use unison to synchronize the backup of pictures I have
taken and noticed that a shockingly high number of pictures where marked
as changed
On 14:13 Fri 08 Sep, Tobias Roth wrote:
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 08:13:11PM +0200, Daniel Bond wrote:
Hi,
I just setup GBDE on my laptop, encrypting my 512M cf-card.
This works like a charm, but I felt the need to enchance the rc-script a
little to automatically mount the encrypted
Greetings,
Currently I have FBSD 6.1 release (custom build, DMI, DRM, took out some
drivers that I don't use) however, 6.1 release generic didn't quite work
either*. (Works on a different (slower) harddrive controller)
ACPI doesn't seem to work on this computer.
The problem is that I have two
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when
changes are MFC'd into production branches of the code. This kind of
thing is expected if you're running
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 04:04:40PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Karl Denninger wrote:
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
C'mon guys. This sort of thing belies a total lack of concern when
changes are MFC'd into production branches
Steven Hartland wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
If you are using RAID0|5, then something is slowing you down (possible
clash between disk firmware and the Areca, or unfortunate choice of
strip chunk size).
Dont know which test I was remembering but just did a quicky:
OS: FreeBSD 6.1
RAID: 5 on 5
On 9/9/06, Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops- mangled reply.
On 9/9/06, Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is gone, but a new error message appears as often as the former,
and under the same circumstances:
mpt0: QUEUE_FULL: Bus 0x00 Target 0x00 Depth 128
Do you see
Yeah, -STABLE is what you should run if you want stable code, right?
No. STABLE means STABLE API.
If you want stable code you run releases. Between releases
stable can become unstable. Think of stable as permanent
BETA code. Changes have passed the first
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ... and yes, I do run stable, and yes, I do expect to hit the
occasional 'oopses', but blantant and obvious bugs due to insufficient
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...
You mean like in the FreeBSD handbook? It's not anyone else's
If by all the time you mean every time certain disk operations
are performed (tarball extraction, files download...), then, yes.
All the time. Otherwise, no error shows up.
Hmm. Okay. I'll work on this.
Insofar as the Error 22- that's normal to see those for verbose
booting. They should
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Robert Watson wrote:
After a couple of weeks of settling, polishing, etc, the MFC of audit
support is about to begin. Over the next couple of days, the 6-STABLE build
may be briefly broken as inter-dependent components are merged. I do not
anticipate any serious
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back to it *was* tested and deemed
stable ...
You mean like in the
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 12:55:42AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2006, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 11:16:29PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
This should be documented somewhere clearly then, as my understanding was
that -STABLE meant that anything MFCd back
On 9/9/06, Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Insofar as the Error 22- that's normal to see those for verbose
booting. They should be more informative as to why those are
occurring.
You're right. Those messages are evident only while verbose booting,
so, I'm not really concerned
35 matches
Mail list logo
