headers
Duncan Patton a Campbell | 1 Mar 2010 07:09
Picon
Favicon

Re: FWIW Current snapshot Apache/PHP buggy

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Stuart Henderson <stu <at> spacehopper.org> wrote:

> On 2010-02-27, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell <at> neotext.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:58:30 -0500
> > Dan Harnett <daniel <at> harnett.name> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:30:47AM -0700, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> >> > I've just installed a server using current and have found that 
> >> > there are problems with session_destroy(); such that is just 
> >> > does not work.  
> >> > 
> >> > The Apache is the installed (1.3) version and PHP is from 
> >> > packages.
> >> > 
> >> > I have tested the same software and setup on a 4.5 Release 
> >> > (no patches) and there are no problems with sessions.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Can you provide any more detail?  session_destroy() appears to work fine
> >> with the i386 snap dated 2/23/2010 and latest php5-core snapshot
> >> package.
> >> 
> >
> > I mebbe spoke to soon to be conclusive... as of now I am still looking
> > under rocks... the problem exhibits on a clean 4.5-Release install but
> > not on my (semi stock) 4.5 development box.
> 
> sessions were broken in PHP in 4.5 release, you need to compile
> from -stable ports (or move to -current after the next package
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Schöberle Dániel | 1 Mar 2010 10:01

Re: Average time for compiling userland? == benchmarking CPU/IO? best result for database hosting?

> Hello,
>
> Iam confused on the different result I get when I compile userland on
> any machine better then a Dual Core 2.5Ghz 2GB RAM 160GB 7200 SATA /
> SATA ii
>
> On some machines I get a compile time of 45min, other machines 30min..
> and the best of the case I get 30min.   Sometimes that machine that
> takes 45min is far better hardware then a DualCore, in this case a
> QuadCore with SATA II/sata...
>
> Iam going to use these machines for database and Iam very concerned
> about these results
>
> Based on that I have this question:
>
> Is it normal that this varies so much? (Afterall a variation from
> 35min to 45min represents an increase of about %25 less efficiency!!)
>
> Is there a better way to benchmark the IO of a Hard Disk on OpenBSD ,
> what should be the normal of a hard disk scanned as sd SATA/ SATA II
> with similar CPU/RAM as mentioned?
>
> Andres

Hi!

You didn't provide too many details. Based on that it could be any of the
following:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Siju George | 1 Mar 2010 11:10
Picon

Re: Books on reverse engineering?

On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 7:22 AM, James Hozier <guitarscn1 <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> So with that reference in mind, would anyone experienced care to point
> me in some correct direction? (Which texts to read, which programming
> language(s) to focus on, etc.)
>

A book that might help.

http://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/

--Siju
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Duncan Patton a Campbell | 1 Mar 2010 11:37
Picon
Favicon

Re: FWIW Current snapshot Apache/PHP buggy

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Stuart Henderson <stu <at> spacehopper.org> wrote:

> On 2010-02-27, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell <at> neotext.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:58:30 -0500
> > Dan Harnett <daniel <at> harnett.name> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:30:47AM -0700, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> >> > I've just installed a server using current and have found that 
> >> > there are problems with session_destroy(); such that is just 
> >> > does not work.  
> >> > 
> >> > The Apache is the installed (1.3) version and PHP is from 
> >> > packages.
> >> > 
> >> > I have tested the same software and setup on a 4.5 Release 
> >> > (no patches) and there are no problems with sessions.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Can you provide any more detail?  session_destroy() appears to work fine
> >> with the i386 snap dated 2/23/2010 and latest php5-core snapshot
> >> package.
> >> 
> >
> > I mebbe spoke to soon to be conclusive... as of now I am still looking
> > under rocks... the problem exhibits on a clean 4.5-Release install but
> > not on my (semi stock) 4.5 development box.
> 
> sessions were broken in PHP in 4.5 release, you need to compile
> from -stable ports (or move to -current after the next package
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Duncan Patton a Campbell | 1 Mar 2010 11:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: FWIW Current snapshot Apache/PHP buggy

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
Stuart Henderson <stu <at> spacehopper.org> wrote:

> On 2010-02-27, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell <at> neotext.ca> wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:58:30 -0500
> > Dan Harnett <daniel <at> harnett.name> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:30:47AM -0700, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> >> > I've just installed a server using current and have found that 
> >> > there are problems with session_destroy(); such that is just 
> >> > does not work.  
> >> > 
> >> > The Apache is the installed (1.3) version and PHP is from 
> >> > packages.
> >> > 
> >> > I have tested the same software and setup on a 4.5 Release 
> >> > (no patches) and there are no problems with sessions.  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Can you provide any more detail?  session_destroy() appears to work fine
> >> with the i386 snap dated 2/23/2010 and latest php5-core snapshot
> >> package.
> >> 
> >
> > I mebbe spoke to soon to be conclusive... as of now I am still looking
> > under rocks... the problem exhibits on a clean 4.5-Release install but
> > not on my (semi stock) 4.5 development box.
> 
> sessions were broken in PHP in 4.5 release, you need to compile
> from -stable ports (or move to -current after the next package
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Tony Sarendal | 1 Mar 2010 11:57

IPsec 4.6 to snapshot failing

Good morning misc,

I upgraded two devices from i386-4.6 to i386-snapshot-feb28.
After the upgrade snapshot boxes are unable to communicate with the 4.6
devices
when going through ipsec. snapshot-snapshot works fine.

Everything looks ok except that nothing shows up on enc0 when doing
4.6<-->snapshot.
Deleting the SA's restores connectiviy, unencrypted of course.
Is this a known issue ?

/T

bmr1.jfa: 212.112.186.174 (4.6)
bmr1.brh: 212.188.183.71 (snapshot)

---
bmr1.jfa# ipsecctl -sa | grep 212.188.183.71
flow esp in from 212.188.183.71 to 212.112.186.174 peer 212.188.183.71 srcid
212.112.186.174/32 dstid 212.188.183.71/32 type use
flow esp out from 212.112.186.174 to 212.188.183.71 peer 212.188.183.71
srcid 212.112.186.174/32 dstid 212.188.183.71/32 type require
esp transport from 212.188.183.71 to 212.112.186.174 spi 0x3f91b3c2 auth
hmac-sha2-256 enc aes
esp transport from 212.112.186.174 to 212.188.183.71 spi 0xa797ec1e auth
hmac-sha2-256 enc aes
bmr1.jfa#

bmr1.brh# ipsecctl -sa | grep 212.112.186.174
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Otto Moerbeek | 1 Mar 2010 12:05

Re: IPsec 4.6 to snapshot failing

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 11:57:41AM +0100, Tony Sarendal wrote:

> Good morning misc,
> 
> I upgraded two devices from i386-4.6 to i386-snapshot-feb28.
> After the upgrade snapshot boxes are unable to communicate with the 4.6
> devices
> when going through ipsec. snapshot-snapshot works fine.
> 
> Everything looks ok except that nothing shows up on enc0 when doing
> 4.6<-->snapshot.
> Deleting the SA's restores connectiviy, unencrypted of course.
> Is this a known issue ?

Yes: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html#20100110

	-Otto

> 
> /T
> 
> bmr1.jfa: 212.112.186.174 (4.6)
> bmr1.brh: 212.188.183.71 (snapshot)
> 
> ---
> bmr1.jfa# ipsecctl -sa | grep 212.188.183.71
> flow esp in from 212.188.183.71 to 212.112.186.174 peer 212.188.183.71 srcid
> 212.112.186.174/32 dstid 212.188.183.71/32 type use
> flow esp out from 212.112.186.174 to 212.188.183.71 peer 212.188.183.71
> srcid 212.112.186.174/32 dstid 212.188.183.71/32 type require
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Hessler | 1 Mar 2010 12:13

Re: IPsec 4.6 to snapshot failing

On 2010 Mar 01 (Mon) at 11:57:41 +0100 (+0100), Tony Sarendal wrote:
:Good morning misc,
:
:I upgraded two devices from i386-4.6 to i386-snapshot-feb28.
:After the upgrade snapshot boxes are unable to communicate with the 4.6
:devices
:when going through ipsec. snapshot-snapshot works fine.
...
:esp transport from 212.188.183.71 to 212.112.186.174 spi 0x3f91b3c2 auth
:hmac-sha2-256 enc aes

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/current.html#20100110

--

-- 
How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pete Vickers | 1 Mar 2010 12:15
Picon
Favicon

Re: kern.maxclusters: 6144 -> ?

On 26. feb. 2010, at 11.58, Claudio Jeker wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:30:30AM +0100, Pete Vickers wrote:
>> On 26. feb. 2010, at 03.01, Aaron Mason wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Pete Vickers <pete <at> systemnet.no> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> A proxy (squid) server running i368/4.6RELEASE with around 800 users,
what
>>>> would be a reasonable value to increase  kern.maxclusters too, to cure
this
>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> root <at> proxy-s ~> grep mcl   /var/log/messages
>>>> Dec 10 10:13:43 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
>>>> kern.maxclusters
>>>> Dec 10 11:06:07 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
>>>> kern.maxclusters
>>>> Dec 15 13:41:48 proxy-s /bsd: WARNING: mclpools limit reached; increase
>>>> kern.maxclusters
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> root <at> proxy-s ~> sysctl kern.maxclusters
>>>> kern.maxclusters=6144
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> root <at> proxy-s ~> netstat -m
>>>> 4098 mbufs in use:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Stuart Henderson | 1 Mar 2010 12:20
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: FWIW Current snapshot Apache/PHP buggy

On 2010/03/01 03:48, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:01:20 +0000 (UTC)
> Stuart Henderson <stu <at> spacehopper.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2010-02-27, Duncan Patton a Campbell <campbell <at> neotext.ca> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:58:30 -0500
> > > Dan Harnett <daniel <at> harnett.name> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 03:30:47AM -0700, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:
> > >> > I've just installed a server using current and have found that 
> > >> > there are problems with session_destroy(); such that is just 
> > >> > does not work.  
> > >> > 
> > >> > The Apache is the installed (1.3) version and PHP is from 
> > >> > packages.
> > >> > 
> > >> > I have tested the same software and setup on a 4.5 Release 
> > >> > (no patches) and there are no problems with sessions.  
> > >> 
> > >> 
> > >> Can you provide any more detail?  session_destroy() appears to work fine
> > >> with the i386 snap dated 2/23/2010 and latest php5-core snapshot
> > >> package.
> > >> 
> > >
> > > I mebbe spoke to soon to be conclusive... as of now I am still looking
> > > under rocks... the problem exhibits on a clean 4.5-Release install but
> > > not on my (semi stock) 4.5 development box.
> > 
> > sessions were broken in PHP in 4.5 release, you need to compile
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane