On 10/31/09, Paul B Mahol one...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/09, Ivan Voras ivo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to setup an AP with a run0 interface on latest 8-STABLE but
apparently 802.11 association fails:
Oct 31 16:21:30 ursaminor hostapd: wlan0: STA 00:22:69:07:30:9e IEEE
802.11:
So I'm not entirely sure which mailing list to post this to in order to
inform the port/package maintainer, and this bug may already be fixed, as
I'm using a package from 7.2-release, but I found a pretty interesting bug.
I live in one of the regions of the US that actually are affected by
So I'm not entirely sure which mailing list to post this to in order to inform
the port/package maintainer, and this bug may already be fixed, as I'm using a
package from 7.2-release, but I found a pretty interesting bug. I live in one
of the regions of the US that actually are affected by
TB --- 2009-11-01 21:50:22 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 21:50:22 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2009-11-01 21:50:22 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 21:50:39 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 21:50:39 -
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:01:47 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:01:47 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for i386/pc98
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:01:47 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:02:03 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:02:03 -
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:09:44 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:09:44 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:09:44 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:10:01 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:10:01 -
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:13:08 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:13:08 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:13:08 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:13:18 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:13:18 -
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:14:11 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:14:11 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for powerpc/powerpc
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:14:11 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:14:25 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:14:25 -
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:20:45 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:20:45 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for sparc64/sparc64
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:20:45 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:20:58 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-01 22:20:58 -
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Olaf Seibert wrote:
Thanks, it looks like it should do the trick. I can't try it before
monday, though.
Although I think the patch does avoid sending the request on the
partially closed connection, it doesn't fix the real problem,
so I don't know if it is worth
Paul B Mahol wrote:
On 10/31/09, Paul B Mahol one...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/09, Ivan Voras ivo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to setup an AP with a run0 interface on latest 8-STABLE but
apparently 802.11 association fails:
Oct 31 16:21:30 ursaminor hostapd: wlan0: STA 00:22:69:07:30:9e
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 20:07, Adam Stylinski styli...@email.uc.edu wrote:
So I'm not entirely sure which mailing list to post this to in order to
inform the port/package maintainer, and this bug may already be fixed, as
I'm using a package from 7.2-release, but I found a pretty interesting bug.
TB --- 2009-11-02 02:53:57 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-02 02:53:57 - starting RELENG_8_0 tinderbox run for i386/i386
TB --- 2009-11-02 02:53:57 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-02 02:54:26 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-02 02:54:26 -
TB --- 2009-11-02 03:08:34 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2009-11-02 03:08:34 - starting RELENG_8_0 tinderbox run for ia64/ia64
TB --- 2009-11-02 03:08:34 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2009-11-02 03:08:59 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2009-11-02 03:08:59 -
I can send in more documentation later but I am seeing severe zfs performance
issues with lighttpd. Same machine using UFS will push 1gbit or more but same
content and traffic load can not hit 200mbit. Ufs does around 3 megabytes/sec
IO at 800mbit network but zfs pushes the disks into the
15 matches
Mail list logo