On 2013-06-03 4:07, Stuart Henderson wrote:
I've updated the README. In future please could you make sure that any
suggestions relating to ports are sent (or at least CC'd) to the
MAINTAINER?
It's easy to miss things in the mailing lists (and a lot of developers
don't
read misc regularly).
I don't seem to be smart enough to figure this one out.
I have a firewall with six physical interfaces: three local network
(wifi, lan, and dmz), and three external interfaces that have been set
up with multipath routing and nat and all that good stuff.
I've been trying to get Squid up and
Sorry for the noise.
OpenBSD 5.3 introduced Squid 3.2, which now checks the destination IP
of inbound packets against the Host: header in interception mode. This
breaks rdr-to, which makes nearly every howto online incorrect (joy).
There was a minor error in the Squid docs which confused me
On 2013-06-02 2:35, Loïc BLOT wrote:
Hello rob,
i'm using squid since 3.1 on OpenBSD 5.2 with compiled sources (squid
3.2.5-9 and 3.3.4 at this time). I don't use an IP but the http_port
3129 as my configuration suggests:
http_port 3128
http_port 3129 intercept
And i have those rule in my PF
I sent this in via sendbug() but am also posting it here in case I'm
doing something obviously wrong.
I've got a fresh from-scratch plain-vanilla 5.2-generic i386 install
with a mildly complex pf.conf file. Adding sticky-address to a single
rule reliably causes a page fault whenever the file
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:19:57 +0100, Claus Niesen cnie...@gmx.net
wrote:
I'm trying to figure out the best way to setup a home file server. I
have
a 700MHz Celeron with 512MB RAM (maxed out), a gigabit network adapter
and
1.5TB hard drive along with a few smaller ones. Currently it is set up
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:10:47 -0600 (CST), L. V. Lammert
l...@omnitec.net
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Rob Sheldon wrote:
Don't know if this is related to a problem I had on a machine recently,
..
however I found that if I hung the 'bad' drive on ANOTHER machine, the
fsck ran just fine
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:42:42 +0100, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:38:47AM +, Rob Sheldon wrote:
Hi,
Therse days, amd64 is the only platform that increases the limit
(MAXDSIZE) to 8G. Though you venture into untested territory, we
(myself at least) just
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:00:32 +0100, frantisek holop min...@obiit.org
wrote:
hmm, on Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 03:28:12PM +0100, Otto Moerbeek said that
the kernel will kill random processes? are we talking about linux's OOM
here or openbsd? since when is this in openbsd? i seem to recall
some
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:42:42 +0100, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:38:47AM +, Rob Sheldon wrote:
There's no dmesg attached because I'm not on-site with the server at
the
moment, and because AFAICT this is a known problem.
A pity, since it does matter
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:06:19 +0100, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
No, currently the amount of physical memory an amd64 can address is
limited.
Well, F___. :-(
The rule here then is, if you've got a partition bigger than 1TB, you
*must* have swap?
- R.
--
[__ Robert Sheldon
[__
Hi,
So, the short version is that I have a server with OpenBSD 4.6 that can't
fsck its big partition; fsck fails with a segfault every time. If I ulimit
-d unlimited before fsck'ing, it just takes a little longer to segfault.
It produces no other output. IIRC, the partition is roughly 6 TB. Two
12 matches
Mail list logo
