From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 31 19:31:51 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A713416A4CE for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cableone.net (scanmail2.cableone.net [24.116.0.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4363643D48 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 19:31:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com) Received: from vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net (unverified [24.119.122.191]) by smail2.cableone.net (SurgeMail 1.5d2) with ESMTP id 2317310 for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 19:19:06 -0700 Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 21:31:27 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20040531213127.1eb7224c@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com Subject: file space question X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:31:51 -0000 Does ufs have the same problem like FAT32, in that if a file exists, it will all ways take up atleast 4KB or so, no matter how little data it contains? From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 31 23:23:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59BD416A4CE for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 23:23:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A2C43D5C for ; Mon, 31 May 2004 23:23:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy1.pacific.net.au (mailproxy1.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.86])i516NS5v022618; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:23:28 +1000 Received: from gamplex.bde.org (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) i516NQ2O026967; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:23:27 +1000 Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:23:20 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@gamplex.bde.org To: Vulpes Velox In-Reply-To: <20040531213127.1eb7224c@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> Message-ID: <20040601160031.T18025@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040531213127.1eb7224c@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: file space question X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:23:39 -0000 On Mon, 31 May 2004, Vulpes Velox wrote: > Does ufs have the same problem like FAT32, in that if a file exists, > it will all ways take up atleast 4KB or so, no matter how little data > it contains? Not exactly. ufs has fragments, which normally have size 1/8 of the block size, so a 1 byte file normally only takes 1/8 of the block size. However, the default block size is 16K, so fragments usually take up at least 2K. If nonstandard block and fragment sizes are used, then the minimum is the same for ufs and msdosfs: ufs: block size 4096, frag size 512 msdosfs: block size 512 With FAT32, 512-byte blocks can cover fairly large disks. IIRC, there can be 2^28 clusters for FAT32, so the maximum is 2^28*512 = 128GB. The default block size for msdosfs originally grew large (up to 32K or 64K) back when there was only FAT16 and the limit was 2^16 or 2^15 clusters. 2*16*32K is just 2GB, so even with the too-large block size of 32K wasn't large enough for new disks about 10 years ago. Since then, 4K has become the default for most cases since it is a good i/o size (still a little too small, but OK with some buffering), and because using a reasonably large block size helps stops the FAT size from beoming preposterously large (2^28 clusters takes 1GB for the FAT). Also, msdosfs has much smaller metadata overheads than ufs, so it can hold a lot of small files in the space that ufs would use for metadata. The wastage is very noticable on small file systems like ones that fit on floppy disks. Bruce From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 11:30:12 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B538216A4D1 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:30:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-out.ukr.net (mail-out.ukr.net [212.42.65.71]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA6143D39 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:30:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from technix@ukr.net) Received: from hammer.ukr.net ([212.42.65.68]) by mail-out.ukr.net with esmtp ID 1BVE1Q-000Bgf-00; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:30:00 +0300 Received: from mail by hammer.ukr.net with local ID 1BVE1Q-000JfB-00 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:30:00 +0300 Received: from [193.41.172.104] by www2.ukr.net with HTTP; Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:30:00 +0000 (GMT) From: "Sergei Mozhaisky" To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [193.41.172.104] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:30:00 +0300 X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1BVE1Q-000JfB-00*LTlKJRXtaXY* Subject: mount_nullfs troubles on preloaded md X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Sergei Mozhaisky List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:30:12 -0000 Hello everyone. FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE with GENERIC kernel. I've made my own mfsroot and put into /sbin all requred files, among them: mount, mount_cd9660, mdmfs, mount_mfs and mount_nullfs. System booting from CD, then mounting md0 and root FS image. But I have a problem with mount_nullfs: # mount /dev/md0 on / (ufs, local) devfs on /dev (devfs, local) /dev/acd0 on /Frenzy/cd (cd9660, local, read-only) /dev/md7.ugz on /Frenzy/fs (ufs, local, read-only) # mount_nullfs /Frenzy/fs/bin /bin mount_nullfs: Operation not supported by device # mount_nullfs /bin /Frenzy/fs/bin mount_nullfs: No such file or directory # mount_nullfs /Frenzy/cd/boot /boot mount_nullfs: Operation not supported by device # mount_nullfs /boot /Frenzy/cd/boot mount_nullfs: No such file or directory With mount_unionfs got the same trouble. Then I've compiled mount_wrapfs (tool like mount_nullfs) from 'FIST' project (http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/research/fist/) and tried to do the same operation. Directories mounted OK. But when I trying to access these directories wia 'ls' (echo works OK), I've got kernel panic or message "Debug: root vnode is locked" and kernel panic again. Any suggestions? -- Best regards, Mozhaisky Sergei (techniX) [ http://frenzy.org.ua/ ] From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 2 07:30:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B6316A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sirius.avestacs.com (sirius.avestacs.com [65.200.181.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F15043D55 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from navmse@avestacs.com) Received: from GEMINIEXCH.avestacs.com (gemini2.avestacs.com [192.168.1.16]) by sirius.avestacs.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i52EUjNI000407 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 10:30:45 -0400 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:24:59 -0400 Message-ID: <897D34012AA99C46BA8B2A46A003A6B0A3CF26@GEMINIEXCH.avestacs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message you sent. Thread-Index: AcRInJ7i/KzhifxmRD+hbRhvPUy8/Q== From: "Avesta Alerts" To: Subject: Norton AntiVirus detected and quarantined a virus in a message you sent. X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:30:48 -0000 Recipient of the infected attachment: GEMINIEXCH, Second Storage = Group\MailLog, Mail Log/Inbox Subject of the message: Re: Document One or more attachments were quarantined. Attachment your_document.pif was Quarantined for the following = reasons: Virus W32.Netsky.D@mm was found. From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 2 11:09:50 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E9E116A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:09:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.cableone.net (scanmail2.cableone.net [24.116.0.122]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B501A43D48 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 11:09:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kitbsdlist2@HotPOP.com) Received: from vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net (unverified [24.119.122.191]) by smail2.cableone.net (SurgeMail 1.5d2) with ESMTP id 2746631 for multiple; Wed, 02 Jun 2004 10:57:24 -0700 Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 13:09:52 -0500 From: Vulpes Velox To: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <20040602130952.49fb2561@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> In-Reply-To: <20040601160031.T18025@gamplex.bde.org> References: <20040531213127.1eb7224c@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> <20040601160031.T18025@gamplex.bde.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: file space question X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 18:09:50 -0000 On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:23:20 +1000 (EST) Bruce Evans wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2004, Vulpes Velox wrote: > > > Does ufs have the same problem like FAT32, in that if a file > > exists, it will all ways take up atleast 4KB or so, no matter how > > little data it contains? > > Not exactly. ufs has fragments, which normally have size 1/8 of > the block size, so a 1 byte file normally only takes 1/8 of the > block size. However, the default block size is 16K, so fragments > usually take up at least 2K. If nonstandard block and fragment > sizes are used, then the minimum is the same for ufs and msdosfs: > > ufs: block size 4096, frag size 512 > msdosfs: block size 512 > > With FAT32, 512-byte blocks can cover fairly large disks. IIRC, > there can be 2^28 clusters for FAT32, so the maximum is 2^28*512 = > 128GB. The default block size for msdosfs originally grew large (up > to 32K or 64K) back when there was only FAT16 and the limit was 2^16 > or 2^15 clusters. 2*16*32K is just 2GB, so even with the too-large > block size of 32K wasn't large enough for new disks about 10 years > ago. Since then, 4K has become the default for most cases since it > is a good i/o size(still a little too small, but OK with some > buffering), and because using a reasonably large block size helps > stops the FAT size from beoming preposterously large (2^28 clusters > takes 1GB for the FAT). > > Also, msdosfs has much smaller metadata overheads than ufs, so it > can hold a lot of small files in the space that ufs would use for > metadata. The wastage is very noticable on small file systems like > ones that fit on floppy disks. So storing bookmarks and the like each in their own file, on UFS is a bad idea then? Or given modern disk sizes probally can easily be ignored? From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 2 15:18:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DF5A16A4CF for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.28]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ED8A43D45 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:18:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (c20fb66ba48d1a3dd231fa17668f93e4@adsl-67-115-73-128.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [67.115.73.128])i52MIQQU012658; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:18:27 -0500 (CDT) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0D46C51A33; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 15:18:25 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Vulpes Velox Message-ID: <20040602221825.GB89451@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20040531213127.1eb7224c@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> <20040601160031.T18025@gamplex.bde.org> <20040602130952.49fb2561@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040602130952.49fb2561@vixen42.24-119-122-191.cpe.cableone.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: file space question X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:18:38 -0000 --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:09:52PM -0500, Vulpes Velox wrote: > So storing bookmarks and the like each in their own file, on UFS is a > bad idea then? Or given modern disk sizes probally can easily be > ignored? Is disk space really so tight for you that you have to worry where each 2K goes? :-) Kris --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAvlIxWry0BWjoQKURAg+gAJ94dlarHUeAyHM+nGWXUlJwboBHmgCglCAZ CS9vv4GBeKzz1L2tIMIsUIg= =tLrw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dc+cDN39EJAMEtIO-- From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 2 18:29:15 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80D3F16A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.185]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6759A43D46 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:29:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from secureplay@sbcglobal.net) Received: from unknown (HELO rapt0r) (secureplay@sbcglobal.net@68.89.44.231 with login) by smtp806.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2004 01:29:09 -0000 From: "Val P" To: Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 20:28:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcRJChiVSv3RVJI6SpGWV+GMcbARcw== Message-Id: <20040603012915.6759A43D46@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Subject: Fat32 with samba X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 01:29:15 -0000 Is there a known problem in 5.2.1 while exporting Fat32 via samba? Something like kern/39043? I wrote a long question on freebsd-questions but I had no answers. No luck with the samba list either. Am I the only one seeing this? I would think a file corruption issue would at least receive a nod... :( I'd hate to abandon freebsd for this project, but I have no other option since I can't juggle the disk space to convert this drive to UFS (I don't suppose there is an in-place convert?) Help? Here's the message I posted: ---- Hi, Is there any status on bug kern/39043? I think I'm experiencing the same problem, but under 5.2.1. The bug was written against 4.6 but it does not seem to have been closed for 2 years (if I'm reading it correctly.. I'm not very familiar with the bug database). But I'm asking here as opposed to the samba mailing list since the bug report seems to be pointing the finger at a kernel bug. Symptoms: I installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 then samba 3.0.4 from source (I was unable to install the samba 3.0.x from ports, it keeps failing with ec = -1). By default I was getting the following message in /var/log/messages: May 30 14:24:21 mbox kernel: kern.maxpipekva exceeded, please see tuning(7) so I added: kern.ipc.maxpipekva=16222976 to the defaults. Don't know what the value should've been, but at least this fixes the message. I attached an older 80GB drive as /library. I created 10 files in notepad on windows XP Pro. They are just text files, with the sequence 0-9 repeated six times per line, then repeated for about 200,000 lines, giving me 10 identical files of about 16 mb. Exported my fat drive as /fat, and my /tmp drive as /ufs. Ran a copy from windows: copy testfile* \\computername\fat and copy testfile* \\computername\ufs in my tmp, the ten files were identical. on my fat drive, none of the ten files were identical to each other. The size was the same, but the data inside was scrambled, after a few correct blocks at the beginning. Using the /V flag on xcopy didn't signal any errors, but doing an fc /b after the copy from the windows machine showed a lot of differences. There were no errors while copyin to the ufs share, but coping to the fat share I get tons of the following in the samba.machine log: [2004/06/02 00:41:53, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(657) posix_fcntl_lock: WARNING: lock request at offset 0, length 92233720368547758\ 08 returned [2004/06/02 00:41:53, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(658) an Invalid argument error. This can happen when using 64 bit lock offsets [2004/06/02 00:41:53, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(659) on 32 bit NFS mounted file systems. [2004/06/02 00:41:53, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(673) Count greater than 31 bits - retrying with 31 bit truncated length. [2004/06/02 00:41:54, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(657) posix_fcntl_lock: WARNING: lock request at offset 0, length 16580 returned [2004/06/02 00:41:54, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(658) an Invalid argument error. This can happen when using 64 bit lock offsets [2004/06/02 00:41:54, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(659) on 32 bit NFS mounted file systems. [2004/06/02 00:41:54, 0] locking/posix.c:posix_fcntl_lock(657) posix_fcntl_lock: WARNING: lock request at offset 16580, length 16580 returne\ D Note that I'm not using NFS at all. This is a 32-bit machine. NFSCLIENt and NFSSERver is commented out in the kernel config file. I am also curious to know if this bug would affect updates to files, or just copies. Some of the files were updated over the share. I'm not sure if I trust the updates, but I can't visually inspect 60GB of data looking for anomalies. TIA... FWIW, my fstab and dmesg follows. The drive passed rom-based diagnostics. /etc/fstab: # Device Mountpoint FStype Options Dump Pass# /dev/ad0s1b none swap sw 0 0 /dev/ad0s1a / ufs rw 1 1 /dev/ad0s1d /tmp ufs rw 2 2 /dev/ad0s1f /usr ufs rw 2 2 /dev/ad0s1e /var ufs rw 2 2 /dev/acd0 /cdrom cd9660 ro,noauto 0 0 /dev/ad1s1 /library msdosfs rw,-u=1012,-g=1012 \ 2 2 Copyright (c) 1992-2004 The FreeBSD Project. Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE #0: Sat May 29 09:11:27 CDT 2004 root@testbox:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/mbox Preloaded elf kernel "/boot/kernel/kernel" at 0xc0815000. Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0 CPU: Intel Pentium III (863.87-MHz 686-class CPU) Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x683 Stepping = 3 Features=0x383fbff real memory = 267386880 (255 MB) avail memory = 250081280 (238 MB) MPTable: ioapic0: Changing APIC ID to 8 ioapic0: Assuming intbase of 0 ioapic0 irqs 0-23 on motherboard Pentium Pro MTRR support enabled npx0: [FAST] npx0: on motherboard npx0: INT 16 interface pcibios: BIOS version 2.10 Using $PIR table, 10 entries at 0xc00e8810 pcib0: at pcibus 0 on motherboard pci0: on pcib0 pcib0: slot 2 INTA routed to irq 16 pcib0: slot 31 INTC routed to irq 23 pcib0: slot 31 INTB routed to irq 17 agp0: mem 0x40500000-0x4057ffff,0x44000000-0x47ffffff irq 16 at device 2.0 on pci0 pcib1: at device 30.0 on pci0 pci2: on pcib1 pcib1: slot 8 INTA routed to irq 20 pcib1: slot 11 INTA routed to irq 22 fxp0: port 0x1000-0x103f mem 0x40100000-0x40100fff irq 20 at device 8.0 on pci2 fxp0: Ethernet address 00:02:a5:00:b2:ad miibus0: on fxp0 inphy0: on miibus0 inphy0: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto fxp1: port 0x1040-0x107f mem 0x40000000-0x400fffff,0x40200000-0x40200fff irq 22 at device 11.0 on pci2 fxp1: Ethernet address 00:d0:b7:b1:59:ab miibus1: on fxp1 inphy1: on miibus1 inphy1: 10baseT, 10baseT-FDX, 100baseTX, 100baseTX-FDX, auto isab0: at device 31.0 on pci0 isa0: on isab0 atapci0: port 0x2460-0x246f at device 31.1 on pci0 ata0: at 0x1f0 irq 14 on atapci0 ata0: [MPSAFE] ata1: at 0x170 irq 15 on atapci0 ata1: [MPSAFE] uhci0: port 0x2440-0x245f irq 23 at device 31.4 on pci0 usb0: on uhci0 usb0: USB revision 1.0 uhub0: Intel UHCI root hub, class 9/0, rev 1.00/1.00, addr 1 uhub0: 2 ports with 2 removable, self powered pcm0: port 0x2400-0x243f,0x2000-0x20ff irq 17 at device 31.5 on pci0 pcm0: orm0: