From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Apr 11 06:24:15 1996 Return-Path: owner-bugs Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA11639 for bugs-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [204.216.27.3]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA11634 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:24:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id GAA07585 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 06:22:40 -0700 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with ESMTP id PAA13300; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:20:44 +0200 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.11/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id PAA14957; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 15:20:43 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.7.5/8.6.9) id OAA04906; Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:47:13 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199604111247.OAA04906@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: Unsuccessfully to install 2.2-960323 SNAP To: jin@george.lbl.gov (Jin Guojun[ITG]) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:47:13 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <199604102133.OAA21067@george.lbl.gov> from "Jin Guojun[ITG]" at Apr 10, 96 02:33:04 pm X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk As Jin Guojun[ITG] wrote: > I am not using any the old 3Com ethernet card. I am using 3C509B which can > run at 10 MBps. Actually, the 3c503 can also run at 10 MBps. :-) It's even possible that the 3c509 has a poorer design (with its Rx FIFO) than the 3c503... but that wasn't what i'd like to say. > Also, the server and the client are using the same type of cards, Me too. > also, the server and the client are both running FreeBSD, Me too. > also, the FreeBSD 2.1.0 installation via the same situation works well. Neither do i remember that i had to use ``NFS slow'' previously. And it surprised me since i knew that my server is also as slow. That's why i mentioned it at all. > Jordan tald me that 2.2 is using a new RPC. I believe it works, but > the one in the installation must be have a bug that makes such painful. As Jordan also told you now, 2.2 has NFSv3, but that's not enabled by default, and the installation program doesn't attempt to use it. Of course, the RPC programs in the installation are the same as in the regular system, there's nothing magic behind sysinstall except that it ``crunches'' the normal binaries (like mount_nfs) into one large blurb. You can also see this as a ``special-purpose shared library'' binary. > Otherwise, how 2.1.0-RELEASE work fine, but 2.2 not? That's the question, and i was trying to tell you that, while i also noticed a slight change in the timing behaviour, i'm not even able to reproduce the *hangs* even with my rather slow target machine that i'm using for installation tests. So it is very unlikely that anybody of us is possible to track down *your* problems since *we* simply don't see it. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)