Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:24:31 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: Gavin Atkinson <gavin@freebsd.org> Cc: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>, Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD panics with 64GiB of RAM Message-ID: <7d6fde3d0901191324v2faf623dlbe9f43bf48e60b91@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090118164930.R24894@ury.york.ac.uk> References: <496B115F.1000105@fsn.hu> <4970BB63.7030601@andric.com> <4970E8C0.1080005@FreeBSD.org> <49720DFE.3080808@fsn.hu> <20090118164930.R24894@ury.york.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Gavin Atkinson <gavin@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Attila Nagy wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I've already tried something similar. The effect of the patch is this: >> http://people.fsn.hu/~bra/freebsd/20090107-freebsd-x4540/Screenshot-70.png >> >> BTW, this: >> >> ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/200812/8.0-CURRENT-200812-amd64-bootonly.iso >> boots up fine (to sysinstall). >> I haven't installed FreeBSD for years (I'm using netboot), is this i386? >> That could explain the situation. > > I'm confused. That link is a snapshot of amd64 -CURRENT from December. The > first email in this thread said you were trying -CURRENT anmd64 and it > wasn't working. > > So, which ones work and which don't? Are we looking at a regression since > December or has this been fixed between whatever image you first tested and > the December snapshot? > > Gavin Gavin, He's saying that the snapshot from December works, but the more current CURRENT, doesn't. Hence the screenshot from December. HTH, -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7d6fde3d0901191324v2faf623dlbe9f43bf48e60b91>