On Saturday, 10. February 2007 07:34, Ian Smith wrote:
> Since once trying (and failing) to debug or even comprehend a spaghetti
> of scripts and configs behind a dialout-only linux pppd setup some years
> ago, compared to the much more straightforward ppp with mgetty setup for
> both dialout and
Hi,
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:24:11 +0100
> Eric Masson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
emss> Right, and an up to date pppd in base would be imho really nice to have.
emss> Kernel pppoe as in Net/Open would be an alternative to net/mpd.
emss> (No, I'm not volunteering to port NetBSD's kernel ppp
On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Thursday, 8. February 2007 08:38, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 7. February 2007 18:45, Joe Vender wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 07 February 2007 01:59, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > >
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > I'm as much of a change-hating curmudgeon as the next guy, but if
> > anybody is relying on
> > "ifconfig iface -alias" 's undefined behavior, then they deserve the
> > pain that will co
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 09:13:22PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> I'm as much of a change-hating curmudgeon as the next guy, but if
> anybody is relying on
> "ifconfig iface -alias" 's undefined behavior, then they deserve the
> pain that will come with a fix.
>
> As it stands the behavior appears to v
Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
>>
>>> I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
>>> command to be executed:
>>>
>>> ifconfig bce0 -alias
>
On Friday, 9. February 2007 22:48, John Walthall wrote:
> Because of known problems with
> PPPD, KPPP should provide at least the option of using user land PPP.
> You may of course differ from this view. However, unless a large outcry
> arises, I will not close the bug. I think that it is, in-fac
Josh Paetzel wrote:
What hardware RAID buys you over gmirror is that you can boot from it.
[snip]
From a raw speed perspective on an unloaded CPU a 3.0ghz processor is
probably just as fast or faster than the embedded processor on a RAID
card running at a few hundred mhz. Sure, once you sta
On Friday 09 February 2007 20:29, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> > > command to be executed:
> > >
>
Sean Bryant wrote this message on Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 14:07 -0500:
> John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >Antony Mawer wrote this message on Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 17:04 +1100:
> >>On 6/02/2007 1:47 PM, Sean Bryant wrote:
> >>>Dominic Marks wrote:
> Check out G4U (NetBSD based)
> >>>The only problem I can
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:49:08PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> > I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> > command to be executed:
> >
> > ifconfig bce0 -alias
> >
> > It turns out that this comm
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> I've convinced myself that this problem needs to be tested in isolation
> (i.e. you have complete control over both ends of the tunnel) because
> incoming packets over the tunnel cause the host route to get added
> automatically if it wasn't there already.
>
> After reading t
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 04:06:56PM -0500, Kevin Way wrote:
> I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
> command to be executed:
>
> ifconfig bce0 -alias
>
> It turns out that this command eliminated the primary IP for the device.
>
> man ifconfig defines the beh
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.
Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoret
I recently ran into a bug in the jail startup scripts that caused this
command to be executed:
ifconfig bce0 -alias
It turns out that this command eliminated the primary IP for the device.
man ifconfig defines the behavior of -alias to be:
-alias Remove the network address specified.
I will not claim to have any kernel locking foo, however it seems odd to
me that this machine has lots of processes waiting on "allproc" but
"show alllocks" doesn't show any process having the allproc lock. Is
this correct?
db> show alllocks
Process 89731 (perform_ca) thread 0xff0128c9fbe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6.2R cd boot failed with follow error,and the MegaRAID fw version is FW_1L33
thanks with any info
Hi,
Firmware 1L33 is from 12/15/04, why not try 1L47 which is the latest and
was released on 5/11/06
You can find it here:
http://www.lsilogic.com/storage_home/products_
On Friday 09 February 2007 09:15, Artem Kuchin wrote:
> Alexander Sabourenkov wrote:
> > Artem Kuchin wrote:
> >> hi!
> >>
> >> I am the original poster of this thread. I have read many
> >> interesting reply during these two days. However, as i said in
> >> the original message due to certificatio
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Antony Mawer wrote this message on Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 17:04 +1100:
On 6/02/2007 1:47 PM, Sean Bryant wrote:
Dominic Marks wrote:
Check out G4U (NetBSD based)
The only problem I can see here is that multiple parallel reads will
have serious performance impacts, thus g
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 00:45:36 +0800
LI Xin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> esi=f69b edi=00040170 epb=03d8 esp=0358
^^^ Typo of "ebp"?
> >> cs=f000 ds=0040 es=5d18fs=9fc0 gs=f000 ss=9e17
> >> cs:eip=ec 50 e4 61 58 50 e4 61-58 ee 5a c3 01 00 e4 c3
> >>
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This isn't the answer, but I'm attempting to provide triage for jhb who
> will probably look at it.
>
> This is a GPF, but it's not being caused by an attempt to enter
> protected mode, so it isn't the most-often reported BTX issue.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
This isn't the answer, but I'm attempting to provide triage for jhb who
will probably look at it.
This is a GPF, but it's not being caused by an attempt to enter
protected mode, so it isn't the most-often reported BTX issue.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
6.2R cd boot failed with follow erro
> > Intel does seem to have a few hardware-based RAID controllers here:
> > http://www.intel.com/products/server/raid/
> >
> > I don't see any driver or support for them in FreeBSD though.
> >
>
> Those are rebranded LSI Megaraid units, amr(4).
Interesting - Someone else mentioned the same thing
Hm... two points here. I, somehow, do not really believe that
software raid (gmirror for example) is as reliable as hardware.
I, deeply inside, believe that i might screw things very badly under some
heavy load and bad timing conditions. Can't explain it. it is religious
i guess,
but i can be
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
> Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical)
> advantage over user ppp: Network data is not pushed through the
> kernel/userland interface an additional two times. This is irrelevant
> for low-speed modem interfaces but could be
- Original Message -
From: "Artem Kuchin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: What is a good choice of sata-ii raid controller for freebsd?
Alexander Sabourenkov wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
hi!
I am the original poster of this thread. I hav
Jaime Bozza wrote:
Hardware RAID1 buys you nothing in perfomance and reliability
for a prolonged headache with drivers, bios insanity and
monitoring+control tools.
Intel does seem to have a few hardware-based RAID controllers here:
http://www.intel.com/products/server/raid/
I don't see any dr
Alexander Sabourenkov wrote:
Artem Kuchin wrote:
hi!
I am the original poster of this thread. I have read many interesting
reply during these two days. However, as i said in the original
message due to certification issues i am pretty limited to INTEL
controllers and i have not seen a single r
Jaime Bozza wrote:
Hardware RAID1 buys you nothing in perfomance and reliability
for a prolonged headache with drivers, bios insanity and
monitoring+control tools.
Intel does seem to have a few hardware-based RAID controllers here:
http://www.intel.com/products/server/raid/
I don't see any dr
6.2R cd boot failed with follow error,and the MegaRAID fw version is FW_1L33
thanks with any info
BTX loader 1.00 BTX version 1.01
Console: internal video/keyboard
BIOS CD is cd0
BIOS drive A: is disk0
BIOS drive C: is disk1
BIOS 639kB/3668928kB available memory
FreeBSD/i386 bootstrap loader, Re
> Hardware RAID1 buys you nothing in perfomance and reliability
> for a prolonged headache with drivers, bios insanity and
> monitoring+control tools.
Intel does seem to have a few hardware-based RAID controllers here:
http://www.intel.com/products/server/raid/
I don't see any driver or support
Artem Kuchin wrote:
hi!
I am the original poster of this thread. I have read many interesting
reply during these two days. However, as i said in the original message
due to certification issues i am pretty limited to INTEL controllers and
i have not seen a single relevant reply about them.
This
Hi,
This is still an issue, we are experiencing hangs and loss of
connectivity on 6.2-release Dell pe1950 machines without
debug.mpsafenet=0. They last about a minute then the machines come alive
again. Needless to say this is impossible to tolerate in a production
environment.
Kind regards,
Fred
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 04:56:09PM -0400, Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> >Hmm. Seems we close the window unexpectedly and the remote side
> >doesn't
> >retransmit when we open it.
>
> Yes, interesting that. :-)
>
> Normally the stack only sets the
hi!
I am the original poster of this thread. I have read many interesting
reply during these two days. However, as i said in the original message
due to certification issues i am pretty limited to INTEL controllers and
i have not seen a single relevant reply about them.
This is interesting. N
On 2007-Feb-08 17:16:23 -0500, John Walthall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>functionally obsolete. User PPP provides better service, and several
>tangible design benefits. User PPP is very easy to use, Kernel PPP is not.
Actually, kernel PPP has one significant (at least theoretical)
advantage over u
36 matches
Mail list logo
