Doug Barton wrote:
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
I agree.
I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant
On 18.12.2010 11:41, Doug Barton wrote:
I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the
ports and at minimum run
Hi,
I applied patch against evening 2010-12-16 STABLE. I did what Martin asked:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org wrote:
# cd /usr/src
# fetch
http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v28/stable-8-zfsv28-20101215.patch.xz
# xz -d
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:26:12AM +0100, Willy Offermans wrote:
I do not think that this issue is related to dependencies. Of course I need
to be sure that the dependencies are correctly installed as well, but this
job is accomplished by ``portupgrade -R -N'' quite well.
No, the real
George Mamalakis wrote:
Oliver, thanx for your comments. I know it is difficult to choose which
process to kill and how to be fair during such a killing procedure.
Nevertheless, I would assume that all non-root processes would have
higher priority to get killed, and that root's
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
...
I vote for the upgrade. It's easy and seamless for users,
as far as I can tell, and it
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Howdy,
Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
consistent throughout a given
Oliver,
I am sending you this email outside the list, because I think that
enough emails have been sent regarding my message.
Now to your statements:
On 18/12/2010 11:47 πμ, Oliver Fromme wrote:
George Mamalakis wrote:
Oliver, thanx for your comments. I know it is difficult to choose
Hello Doug, List,
I confirm the upgrade from 94 to 96 is very minor.
I'm running several fbsd8.0 and 8.1 servers but I still have a
7.2-STABLE box here.
I just upgraded from the ports collections 9.4.4.ESV.2 to 9.6.3.ESV3
named-checkconf doesn't report any error, neither does checkzone.
I
On 12/18/2010 12:41 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I am particularly interested in feedback from users with significant DNS
usage that are still using 9.4, especially if you're using the version
in the base. I would appreciate it if you could install 9.6 from the
ports and at minimum run
In article 4d0c49a2.4000...@freebsd.org, do...@freebsd.org writes:
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
+1
All users are going to want working
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:28 AM, George Mamalakis mama...@eng.auth.gr wrote:
where one can see that pid 1544 was killed before 2864, which is the process
that caused all this mess. Yes, I know that I should use limits so as not to
allow such things to happen, but on the other hand, if a
On 14 Dec 2010, at 5:47 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Anyway, many people are using the below with success.
Sorry to say that netwait did NOT in the end fix the problem.
I however discovered that if I put
synchronous_dhclient=YES
into my /etc/rc.conf file, that over many days reboots now
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Martin Matuska m...@freebsd.org wrote:
The information about pools is stored in /boot/zfs/zpool.cache
If this file doesn't contain correct information, your system pools will
not be discovered.
In v28, importing a pool with the altroot option does not touch
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 11:37:21AM -0700, Dan Allen wrote:
On 14 Dec 2010, at 5:47 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Anyway, many people are using the below with success.
Sorry to say that netwait did NOT in the end fix the problem.
I however discovered that if I put
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:52:10 +0100, George Mamalakis mama...@eng.auth.gr
wrote:
Oliver,
I am sending you this email outside the list, because I think that
That didn't work out as you intended. :-)
enough emails have been sent regarding my
Hi--
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:41 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD RELENG_7.
+1
I am particularly interested in feedback from
On 12/18/2010 03:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
we have tried to keep the major version of the contributed software
consistent throughout a given RELENG_$N
On 12/18/2010 09:16, Garrett Wollman wrote:
In article4d0c49a2.4000...@freebsd.org, do...@freebsd.org writes:
In order to avoid repeating the scenario where we have a version of BIND
in the base that is not supported by the vendor I am proposing that we
upgrade to BIND 9.6-ESV in FreeBSD
On 12/18/2010 14:51, Chuck Swiger wrote:
One gripe is that stopping via rc script fails:
# grep named /etc/rc.conf named_enable=YES
named_program=/usr/local/sbin/named
# /etc/rc.d/named stop named not running? (check
/var/run/named/pid).
...because of the -t /var/named, probably. Is there a
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
If you start named with the rc.d script it should do that for you.
ll /var/run/named/pid
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root bind 28 Dec 18 13:52 /var/run/named/pid@ -
/var/named/var/run/named/pid
Make sure you don't have named_symlink_enable=NO
On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
/var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
You're not using the default named.conf file then. What you've got there
is the named default, whether from ports or the base, doesn't matter.
I
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
/var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
You're not using the default named.conf file then.
Nope.
What you've got there is the named
On 12/18/2010 16:10, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Dec 18, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/18/2010 15:41, Chuck Swiger wrote:
/usr/local/sbin/named from ports seems to be using a
/var/named/var/run/named/named.pid file instead.
You're not using the default named.conf file then.
Nope.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 03:07:11PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/18/2010 03:15, Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 09:41:54PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Howdy,
Traditionally for contributed software generally, and BIND in particular
we have tried to keep the major version of
25 matches
Mail list logo
