From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 28 22:49:18 2005 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 1D0E516A4CE for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:49:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from shell.reiteration.net (82-34-179-228.cable.ubr01.sout.blueyonder.co.uk [82.34.179.228]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 269B243D31 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:49:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@reiteration.net) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=reiteration.net) by shell.reiteration.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5tiB-0002sm-Hk for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:49:59 +0000 From: "John" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:49:56 +0000 Message-Id: <20050228223623.M43989@reiteration.net> In-Reply-To: <13510380621.20050228223554@wanadoo.fr> References: <42224A80.9010109@wanadoo.es> <956831073.20050228205253@wanadoo.fr> <20050228140846.Y94755@makeworld.com> <1349830048.20050228211534@wanadoo.fr> <42238E68.3090604@cis.strath.ac.uk> <13510380621.20050228223554@wanadoo.fr> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.50 20050106 X-OriginatingIP: 192.168.1.7 (jfm) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: lists@reiteration.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on shell.reiteration.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Subject: Re: Installation instructions for Firefox somewhere? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:49:18 -0000 On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:35:54 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote > Chris Hodgins writes: > > > Sounds like the perfect time for them to go wrong. They have been doing > > the same thing for 8 years without problem. > > They are still doing the same thing today. There is no additional > stress in changing operating systems. > > > Suddenly you come along and give them a good old shake up...I would > > imagine this would be the perfect occasion for this to happen. > > I have no idea what you mean by this. No "shake-up" is involved. They > do the same I/O they've always been doing. They have no idea whether > it's Windows NT starting the I/O or FreeBSD. It all looks the same > to the drives. Have you considered the possibility that windows just didn't report the error? Just because it is unreported under windows doesn't mean it's not happening... And just because it has been working for 8 years without a problem doesn't mean it will go working for a further 8, even if you change nothing.. Saying that, I do notice that sometimes, I do get scsi errors on boot, but then again I have modified the delay in probing the devices from 15000ms to 5000 in order to speed up boot. Probably unwise, given that the system has 2 scsi cards in, and as well as 5 drives, a scsi cdrom, it also has a scanner, which is slow to wake up. Saying *that*, on boot, one card always boots up fast. Sometimes the other card also boots up, sometimes it times out. But at the login prompt, everything on the system is up. This is prior to the boot loader loading, so it cannot possibly be FreeBSD. You haven't told us what you mean by scsi errors. Is it like I describe, or is it subsequent to bootup? -- lists@reiteration.net