On 06/06/2010, at 12:29 PM, Neal Hogan wrote:
Don't act like this is normal. Where in the archives has this been
reported?
Like I said, I appreciate the difference and the suggestions. The
archives require this post, because it is unexpected. Thanks for the
help.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 2:01 AM, David Gwynne l...@animata.net wrote:
On 06/06/2010, at 12:29 PM, Neal Hogan wrote:
Don't act like this is normal. Where in the archives has this been reported?
Like I said, I appreciate the difference and the suggestions. The
archives require this post,
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Ouellet dan...@presscom.net wrote:
On 6/5/10 10:56 PM, Neal Hogan wrote:
I had not determined that. . . I did not see where somebody's HDDs
were interpreted differently.
Hi Neal,
It's not the HHD that is interpreted differently, it's the changes and
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives differently than 4.6 did. That is, when asked (during upgrade)
which disk the root partition is on it offers: sd0 wd0 wd1 wd2.
However, what I'm expecting is: wd0 wd1 wd2 wd3
Thus, fsck fails and therefore the
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives differently than 4.6 did. That is, when asked (during upgrade)
which disk the root partition is on it offers: sd0 wd0 wd1 wd2.
However,
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Edho P Arief edhopr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives differently than 4.6 did. That is, when asked (during upgrade)
On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 05:50:39PM -0500, Neal Hogan wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Edho P Arief edhopr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:14 AM, Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives
2010/6/6 Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com:
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives differently than 4.6 did. That is, when asked (during upgrade)
which disk the root partition is on it offers: sd0 wd0 wd1 wd2.
However, what I'm expecting is: wd0 wd1
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/6 Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com:
Hello,
I just tried to upgrade my machine to 4.7 (release) and it IDs my hard
drives differently than 4.6 did. That is, when asked (during upgrade)
which disk the root partition is
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/6 Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com:
...
As it was already pointed, one disk is connected to AHCI-compatible
controller.
ahci0 at pci0 dev 17
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Vadim Zhukov persg...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/6 Neal Hogan nealho...@gmail.com:
...
As it was already pointed, one
Don't act like this is normal.
It is normal.
Where in the archives has this been reported?
Why did it have to be reported?
You expect every semantic of the way our kernel behaves to be
reported ... in the archives?
In your dreams..
Like I said, I appreciate the difference and the
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org
wrote:
Don't act like this is normal.
It is normal.
I had not determined that. . . I did not see where somebody's HDDs
were interpreted differently.
Where in the archives has this been reported?
Why did it have to be
On 6/5/10 10:56 PM, Neal Hogan wrote:
I had not determined that. . . I did not see where somebody's HDDs
were interpreted differently.
Hi Neal,
It's not the HHD that is interpreted differently, it's the changes and
improvement to the controller that is better supported in 4.7 then before.
14 matches
Mail list logo
