On 7/20/2012 06:23, Edward M wrote:
hello,
trying to build seamonkey 2.10 from pkgsrc2012Q2
however, it fails with the following error:
pkg_create: lstat failed for file
lib/seamonkey/extensions/inpec...@mozilla.org/chrome/
icons/default/winInspectorMain.xpm: no such file or directory
Err
People who use HAMMER also tend to backup their filesystems using
the streaming mirroring feature. You need a backup anyway, regardless.
definitely. Backups are different thing.
But i do not consider online mirroring from hammer as backup feature, but
something like more sophisticated m
despite of an error message at startup is working fine, as long as I'm not
trying to configure it, since GConf is not working.
just use windows manager like cwm or fvwm2+your own configuration.
I for example use my 9 year old .fvwm2rc which results in cwm-alike
environment.
it's really easier
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Dillon
wrote:
>
> Try 'hammer snapls '. The snapshots are recorded in meta-data
> so if they're still there you can get them back. You may have to
> write a script to recreate the softlinks from the output.
>
Yes the snapshots are all there.
David.Crosswell wrote:
> If you are having trouble accessing GDM capability, I know that Debian
> have a package that attributes GDM capability to KDM.
> Might be worth looking at to see how it's put together.
> Regards,
>
> David.
thanks for reply. I not using gdm to login
if that is what yo
:I have PFS slaves on a second disk.
:I have already fitted a new disk and the OS installation is complete.
: I will upgrade the Slaves to Master and then configure slaves for
:them so there is no problem.
:
:But I have lost the snapshot symlinks :-(
:In the PFSes I snapshotted every 5 minutes I h
People who use HAMMER also tend to backup their filesystems using
the streaming mirroring feature. You need a backup anyway, regardless.
HAMMER makes it easy, and this is the recommended method for dealing
with media faults on HDDs not backed by hardware RAID (and even if
they
Stéphane Russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe we're not using the same pkgsrc version? I didn't upgraded from
> pkgsrc-2011Q4 since the beginning of 2012. I used this version to
> build my workstation, along with DragonFly v3.0.1-RELEASE. Theses
> versions where tested on my server, so I used them instea
On 20/07/12 13:40, Edward M wrote:
> Justin Sherrill wrote:
>> I just happened to read about a fix in pkgsrc-current for seamonkey.
>> I don't know if this applies to the version you were trying to build.
>>
>> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2012/07/19/msg016746.html
>
> thanks for th
Justin Sherrill wrote:
> I just happened to read about a fix in pkgsrc-current for seamonkey.
> I don't know if this applies to the version you were trying to build.
>
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2012/07/19/msg016746.html
thanks for the info.
different version, version i am try
On Thursday 19 July 2012 21:40:44 Stéphane Russell wrote:
> I finally got a PC to make myself a GUI workstation with DragonFly. I
> first tried Gnome, without success. There seem to be issues with GConf
> and HAL, and the console is not available to GDM. So I tried XDM along
> with a XFCE GUI and i
Hi,
Maybe we're not using the same pkgsrc version? I didn't upgraded from
pkgsrc-2011Q4 since the beginning of 2012. I used this version to build
my workstation, along with DragonFly v3.0.1-RELEASE. Theses versions
where tested on my server, so I used them instead of trying the latest
version
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Edward M wrote:
> Stéphane Russell wrote:
>> Seamonkey browser and mail (sorry, I'm old fashion: I'm dedicated to
>> Netscape since always
> You got seamonkey to build from pkgsrc? mine stopped on a error when
> I was trying to build.
>
I just happened to read
Stéphane Russell wrote:
> Seamonkey browser and mail (sorry, I'm old fashion: I'm dedicated to
> Netscape since always
You got seamonkey to build from pkgsrc? mine stopped on a error when
I was trying to build.
Sorry, i also just love ZFS for the business case i rely on it for. It has
some
clearly nice features.
sorry if your resoning for software is based on love, not logic then it's
good idea to end topic.
Probably your business is more about "deploying" as much as possible and
that's all.
Wojciech Puchar writes:
Any Tree-like structure produces a huge risk of losing much more data that
was corrupted at first place.
Not so sure about that statement, but well, let's agree we might disagree :)
disagreement is a source of all good ideas. but you should explain why.
Well, argui
Any Tree-like structure produces a huge risk of losing much more data that
was corrupted at first place.
Not so sure about that statement, but well, let's agree we might disagree :)
disagreement is a source of all good ideas. but you should explain why.
my explanation below.
You asked for
Wojciech Puchar writes:
What i point out that flat data layout makes chance of recovery far higher
and chance of bad destruction far lower.
Any Tree-like structure produces a huge risk of losing much more data that
was corrupted at first place.
Not so sure about that statement, but well, le
OK, understood now, i think: you agree with temporarily loosing a bit of
unreclaimed free-space on disk until time permits cleaning things up
properly, afaiu softupdates (+journalling ? not really clear).
That it. And that's how original softupdates document describe it.
You may run quite saf
Wojciech Puchar writes:
you may postpone fsck when using softupdates. It is clearly stated in
softupdate documents you may find (McKusick was one of the authors).
that's what i do.
Then, you suffer a performance hit when fsck'ing in bg.
once again - read more carefully :)
I am NOT talking
you may postpone fsck when using softupdates. It is clearly stated in
softupdate documents you may find (McKusick was one of the authors).
that's what i do.
Then, you suffer a performance hit when fsck'ing in bg.
once again - read more carefully :)
I am NOT talking about background fsck whi
Wojciech Puchar writes:
My main problem had been with ffs_fsck. At one point my machine was
randomly crashing due to a bad power supply. Everytime I started up, did
an hour of work, then crash, then 30-40 minutes for fsck to run, and an
you may postpone fsck when using softupdates. It is clear
My main problem had been with ffs_fsck. At one point my machine was
randomly crashing due to a bad power supply. Everytime I started up, did
an hour of work, then crash, then 30-40 minutes for fsck to run, and an
you may postpone fsck when using softupdates. It is clearly stated in
softupdat
> This was under FreeBSD but DragonFly UFS is no different.
>
My main problem had been with ffs_fsck. At one point my machine was
randomly crashing due to a bad power supply. Everytime I started up, did
an hour of work, then crash, then 30-40 minutes for fsck to run, and an
hour later do it all ov
which i don't have at the moment.
just dd /dev/random and overwrite a few sectors?
good but... real failures are always worse than that.
In my tests ZFS for example (which for me is plain example of bad design
and bad implementation) failed within less than hour to the point it was
mounta
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:42:02PM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> >> UFS use flat on disk structure. inodes are at known places.
> >>
> >> I don't know how HAMMER data is placed, but seems everything is dynamic.
> >>
> >> any link to description of HAMMER on disk layout?
> >
> > Please, read ham
UFS use flat on disk structure. inodes are at known places.
I don't know how HAMMER data is placed, but seems everything is dynamic.
any link to description of HAMMER on disk layout?
Please, read hammer(8) (at the subcommand "recover").
thank you very much.
While such recovery is painfully s
Wojciech Puchar writes:
not great.
This is not a hammer problem but a problem with the underlying disk. It
couldn't read from the disk - that is pretty much a file-system
independent problem; UFS would fail equally miserably.
not true.
it is very unlinkey case you will not be able to mount. y
not great.
This is not a hammer problem but a problem with the underlying disk. It
couldn't read from the disk - that is pretty much a file-system
independent problem; UFS would fail equally miserably.
not true.
it is very unlinkey case you will not be able to mount. you will not be
able to re
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Alex Hornung wrote:
>
> This is not a hammer problem but a problem with the underlying disk. It
> couldn't read from the disk - that is pretty much a file-system
> independent problem; UFS would fail equally miserably.
>
I have PFS slaves on a second disk.
I have
On 19/07/12 09:25, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> this is example of what i fear about hammer. One error results in
> unability to mount.
>
> If it is just software error in hammer that's great. If it is design...
> not great.
This is not a hammer problem but a problem with the underlying disk. It
coul
HAMMER(ROOT) recovery check seqno=8ca97e62
HAMMER(ROOT) recovery range 36877528-36892fa0
HAMMER(ROOT) recovery nexto 36892fa0 endseqno=8ca98015
HAMMER(ROOT) recovery undo 36877528-36892fa0 (113272 bytes)(RW)
ad4: FAILURE - READ_DMA48 status=51
error=40 LBA=
32 matches
Mail list logo
