In a not so distant past, boot0cfg -sn ... used to work, then it only
partialy worked, it would modify the data in boot but not the mbr, for
which 'gpart -s set active -in ...' modified the mbr. Now
# boot0cfg -s1 -v /dev/mfid0
boot0cfg: write_mbr: /dev/mfid0: Operation not permitted
but:
#
pkg_version -IoL=
graphics/dri
java/eclipse-eclemma!
graphics/libGL
graphics/libGLU
graphics/libdrm
graphics/libglut
graphics/mesa-demos
games/openarena
Luke Marsden l...@hybrid-logic.co.uk writes:
On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 18:55 -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
It seems MCA capability is advertised by the CPUID translator but
writing to the MSRs causes GPF. In other words, it seems like a CPU
emulator bug. A simple workaround is 'set
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:26:41AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
In a not so distant past, boot0cfg -sn ... used to work, then it only
partialy worked, it would modify the data in boot but not the mbr, for
which 'gpart -s set active -in ...' modified the mbr. Now
# boot0cfg -s1 -v /dev/mfid0
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:26:41AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
In a not so distant past, boot0cfg -sn ... used to work, then it only
partialy worked, it would modify the data in boot but not the mbr, for
which 'gpart -s set active -in ...' modified the mbr. Now
# boot0cfg -s1 -v
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:20:42PM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:26:41AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
In a not so distant past, boot0cfg -sn ... used to work, then it only
partialy worked, it would modify the data in boot but not the mbr, for
which 'gpart -s
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:03:33AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
* Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
1) mysqld_safe /dev/null 21 never released the tty
2) nohup mysqld_safe /dev/null 21 did release the tty
What happens if you run the following command?
daemon -cf
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 04:34:34 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
Anyway, if the MBR did get updated without kern.geom.debugflags having
bit 4 set, then wouldn't this indicate there's a bug in GEOM's sector
0 protection?
Or that it knows that updating the active byte is
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 01:20:42PM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:26:41AM +0200, Daniel Braniss wrote:
In a not so distant past, boot0cfg -sn ... used to work, then it only
partialy worked, it would modify the data in boot but not the mbr, for
which 'gpart
On Wed, September 29, 2010 3:57 pm, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dan Langille d...@langille.org wrote:
It's taken about 15 hours to copy 800GB. I'm sure there's some tuning I
can do.
The system is now running:
# zfs send storage/bac...@transfer | zfs receive
On Fri, October 1, 2010 11:45 am, Dan Langille wrote:
On Wed, September 29, 2010 3:57 pm, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Dan Langille d...@langille.org wrote:
It's taken about 15 hours to copy 800GB. I'm sure there's some tuning
I
can do.
The system is now
TB --- 2010-10-01 12:12:52 - tinderbox 2.6 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca
TB --- 2010-10-01 12:12:52 - starting RELENG_8 tinderbox run for mips/mips
TB --- 2010-10-01 12:12:52 - cleaning the object tree
TB --- 2010-10-01 12:14:04 - cvsupping the source tree
TB --- 2010-10-01 12:14:04 -
On Sep 29, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 09:57:53AM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
I doubt repeated coincidences. :-) Is prime95 testing running stable after
waking from sleep?
He's not running Prime95 (native Win32 app), he's running
ports/math/mprime
Quoting Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 07:28:13PM -0300, Mario Sergio Fujikawa
Ferreira wrote:
Hi,
I've just began trying chrome web browser from
http://chromium.hybridsource.org/ but it triggered 2 panics on my
8.1-STABLE system.
$ uname -a
FreeBSD
On Wed, September 29, 2010 2:04 pm, Dan Langille wrote:
$ zpool iostat 10
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
-- - - - - - -
storage 7.67T 5.02T358 38 43.1M 1.96M
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 02:51:12PM -0400, Dan Langille wrote:
On Wed, September 29, 2010 2:04 pm, Dan Langille wrote:
$ zpool iostat 10
capacity operationsbandwidth
pool used avail read write read write
-- - - - - -
Hmm. It did help me a lot when I was replicating ~2TB worth of data
over GigE. Without mbuffer things were roughly in the ballpark of your
numbers. With mbuffer I've got around 100MB/s.
Assuming that you have two boxes connected via ethernet, it would be
good to check that nobody generates PAUSE
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Dan Langille d...@langille.org wrote:
FYI: this is all on the same box.
In one of the previous emails you've used this command line:
# mbuffer -s 128k -m 1G -I 9090 | zfs receive
You've used mbuffer in network client mode. I assumed that you did do
your transfer
FYI: this is all on the same box.
--
Dan Langille
http://langille.org/
On Oct 1, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx wrote:
Hmm. It did help me a lot when I was replicating ~2TB worth of data
over GigE. Without mbuffer things were roughly in the ballpark of your
numbers. With
On 30 Sep, Don Lewis wrote:
The silent reboots that I was seeing with WITNESS go away if I add
WITNESS_SKIPSPIN. Witness doesn't complain about anything.
I've tracked down the the silent reboot problem. It happens when a
userland sysctl call gets down into calcru1(), which tries to print a
On 10/1/2010 7:00 PM, Artem Belevich wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Dan Langilled...@langille.org wrote:
FYI: this is all on the same box.
In one of the previous emails you've used this command line:
# mbuffer -s 128k -m 1G -I 9090 | zfs receive
You've used mbuffer in network
As soon as I opened this email I knew what it would say.
# time zfs send storage/bac...@transfer | mbuffer | zfs receive
storage/compressed/bacula-mbuffer
in @ 197 MB/s, out @ 205 MB/s, 1749 MB total, buffer 0% full
...
Big difference. :)
I'm glad it helped.
Does anyone know why
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Artem Belevich fbsdl...@src.cx wrote:
As soon as I opened this email I knew what it would say.
# time zfs send storage/bac...@transfer | mbuffer | zfs receive
storage/compressed/bacula-mbuffer
in @ 197 MB/s, out @ 205 MB/s, 1749 MB total, buffer 0% full
On 02/10/2010, at 11:43 AM, Artem Belevich wrote:
As soon as I opened this email I knew what it would say.
# time zfs send storage/bac...@transfer | mbuffer | zfs receive
storage/compressed/bacula-mbuffer
in @ 197 MB/s, out @ 205 MB/s, 1749 MB total, buffer 0% full
..
Big
24 matches
Mail list logo
