From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 11 18:43:44 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BA231065689 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:43:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@t-b-o-h.net) Received: from vjofn.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (vjofn-pt.tunnel.tserv1.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f00:ffff::5e5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C268FC15 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:43:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@t-b-o-h.net) Received: from setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (cpe-24-161-50-5.hvc.res.rr.com [24.161.50.5]) (authenticated bits=0) by vjofn.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m9BIhXaU024378 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:43:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m9BIgs4d099536 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:42:55 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tbohml@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com) Received: (from tbohml@localhost) by setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id m9BIgsIw099535 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:42:54 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tbohml) From: Tuc Message-Id: <200810111842.m9BIgsIw099535@setup.house.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:42:54 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 192.168.3.118 Subject: Re: Worth persuing a KDB: stack backtrace: ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:43:44 -0000 > > > > Booting the machine in single-user mode and run "fsck -y". I'm betting > > you'll find errors. If not, then it's probably a kernel bug -- see > > below, however. > Ya lost the bet.... All filesystems were supposedly fine. Tuc