From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 9 06:08:15 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBE416A4CE for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:08:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from be-well.no-ip.com (lowellg.ne.client2.attbi.com [66.30.200.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5607F43D30 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 06:08:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: by be-well.no-ip.com (Postfix, from userid 1147) id E7B9174; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:08:13 -0500 (EST) Sender: lowell@be-well.ilk.org To: "Xpression" References: <000501c3bcd6$4c13dfe0$0901a8c0@bloodlust> From: Lowell Gilbert Date: 09 Dec 2003 09:08:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: <000501c3bcd6$4c13dfe0$0901a8c0@bloodlust> Message-ID: <4465gqdqya.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Lines: 33 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: FreeBSD-questions Subject: Re: Which might be the problem ??? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD-questions List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:08:15 -0000 "Xpression" writes: > Hi list, I've a FreeBSD-4.5 server running tacacs+, exim and > popa3d, it's working fine, no problem, but sometimes when I > reboot via: name_server# reboot I see this message... > > Waiting for .......... > Waiting for .......... > Waiting for .......... > Syncing disks 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 > > (I always see this message but when it give me error is when > Syncing disks get too large the string) > > ...then saids me that message on init. > > /kernel Mounting root from ufs: /dev/ad0s1a > /kernel WARNING: / was not properly dismounted > > Any clues ??? I'd recommend rebooting with "shutdown -r" rather than "reboot" unless you have a good reason to do otherwise. This shouldn't happen anyway, but the extra shutdown steps will certainly be a bit safer. It's likely (based on a *very* quick look at the code) that you're hitting a bug which has been fixed since 4.5, so perhaps you should consider an update. -- Lowell Gilbert, embedded/networking software engineer, Boston area: resume/CV at http://be-well.ilk.org:8088/~lowell/resume/ username/password "public"