Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:46:53 -0500 From: Lotus_Mail_Exchange@CSERVE4.CCMAIL.compuserve.com To: "INTERNET:hackers@freefall.freebsd.org" <hackers@freefall.freebsd.org> Subject: NON-DELIVERY of: hackers-digest V1 #1668 Message-ID: <199611271238_MC1-BC4-D9D9@compuserve.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sender: owner-hackers-digest@freefall.freebsd.org
Received: from ns2.harborcom.net (ns2.harborcom.net [206.158.4.4]) by hil-img-4.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id HAA01690; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:12:14 -0500
From: <owner-hackers-digest@freefall.freebsd.org>
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.18]) by ns2.harborcom.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id HAA00576; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:10:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from root@localhost)
by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA12234
for freebsd-hackers-digest-outgoing; Fri, 22 Nov 1996 02:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 02:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199611221045.CAA12234@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-hackers-digest@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: hackers-digest V1 #1668
Reply-To: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org
Errors-To: owner-hackers-digest@freefall.freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk
hackers-digest Friday, 22 November 1996 Volume 01 : Number 1668
In this issue:
IBM 57SLC
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: arpresolve errors
Re: IBM 57SLC
Re: IBM 57SLC
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Disk Striping
Re: Pentium Pro status
Re: Pentium Pro status
Re: Disk Striping
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kjell E Grotland <kegrotla@korrnet.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:29:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: IBM 57SLC
Hopefully this is not too trivial a matter but i was wondering if it is
possible to Run FreeBSD on an IBM 57SLC. The reason i ask is because
apparently this is a machine on which IBM place its proprietary Micro
Channel Bus system and i was wondering if it made a difference in
installing the FreeBSD Operating system. If not underwhich type of
hardware configuration should i install the operating system?
Thank you for your help in this matter
Kjell
Kjell E. Grotland
kegrotla@korrnet.org
Where do you seek the Beloved?
------------------------------
From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:10:02 +1030 (CST)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Nate Williams stands accused of saying:
> >
> > That's all well and good, but it presents a chicken-and-egg situation
> > for anyone trying to work outside the decades-old BSD model. You may
> > not consider this a problem; I do. Opinions differ.
>
> Yes, but anyone capable of developing a 'cool tool' with TCL that we
> can't live w/out is capable of installing a port, and *then* showing me
> how wonderful it is to justify bringing in TCL as part of the base
> system.
>
> Put the cart *before* the horse.
Chicken->egg, egg->chicken? I can say that I wouldn't have undertaken
what I have if Tcl wasn't a part of the standard system - too many people
would say "but it needs Tcl, and I don't want to install that because ...".
I figure that once it is clear that Perl is intended to be a part of the
base system, and that it's a stable item not going anywhere, people
should pick up and start using it.
And the ultimate comeback is; if I'm wrong, and after 12 months nothing
has made use of it and everybody hates it, it can go away again. At
that point, there can be (even though there would be 8) no argument.
> Nate
- --
]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[
]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[
]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[
]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[
]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
------------------------------
From: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:47:26 PST
Subject: Re: arpresolve errors
In message <Pine.BSF.3.91.961121082716.8206O-100000@panda.hilink.com.au>you wri
te:
>I'll put a watcher program on
>/var/log/messages to do a netstat -rn when it sees the arpresolve messages.
Please do; it's likely to be the only way to track down why you're seeing them.
Bill
------------------------------
From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:48:29 +1030 (CST)
Subject: Re: IBM 57SLC
Kjell E Grotland stands accused of saying:
> Hopefully this is not too trivial a matter but i was wondering if it is
> possible to Run FreeBSD on an IBM 57SLC. The reason i ask is because
> apparently this is a machine on which IBM place its proprietary Micro
> Channel Bus system and i was wondering if it made a difference in
> installing the FreeBSD Operating system. If not underwhich type of
> hardware configuration should i install the operating system?
FreeBSD does not currently support Microchannel. If you need a Unix
to run on that system, you may be able to get a PS/2 AIX to work.
For FreeBSD, PCI is the bus of choice; EISA and ISA also work well.
> Kjell E. Grotland
- --
]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[
]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[
]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[
]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[
]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
------------------------------
From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:52:38 -0700
Subject: Re: IBM 57SLC
In message <199611220218.MAA16607@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Michael Smith writes:
: FreeBSD does not currently support Microchannel. If you need a Unix
: to run on that system, you may be able to get a PS/2 AIX to work.
There is also a Linux microchannel port, but I know not its stability
or where to find it.
: For FreeBSD, PCI is the bus of choice; EISA and ISA also work well.
VLB works too!
Gotta get me some more modern hardware...
Warner
------------------------------
From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:56:36 -0600
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
>
> <<< No Message Collected >>>
Anybody have any idea why I have gotten about 20 of these
in the last couple of hours? Is anybody else seeing this?
Steve
------------------------------
From: FreeBSD Acct <freebsd@dyslexic.phoenix.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:37:55 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Disk Striping
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, michael butler wrote:
>
> It is, however, quite valid to stripe any one activity, such as scribbling
> out the articles across multiple drives. You could, for example, use two
> striped drives for the history stuff, one for the overview (only if you have
> any readers) and two striped for the article spool to achieve what you're
> after. Even better, split the two striped arrangements onto two separate
> (SCSI) controllers,
Our news servers here, are P166's with 128Mb each, with two Adaptec3940
PCI cards.
There are four 4Gig drives, each has its own separage SCSI controller as
the 3940 has two controllers per card.
The drives are identical, and in a CCD array.
The pair of news servers boots from IDE..and swaps on the IDE as well.
*Yes, I know, the IDE isnt that fast for swap* But its rarely more than
20Mb into it anyway under INN 1.5pre.
Compared to how we had the news farm before..the CCD is many many times
faster and more efficient.
Special thanks to Rod Grimes for suggesting a 64k block size on the
CCD...you'll have to ask him why..he understands those FS kinda things...
Geoff
------------------------------
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:07:09 -0800
Subject: Re: Pentium Pro status
Well, PPRO + 440FX is incompatible with a few chipsets mostly because
the 440fx is PCI 2.0 .
For instance, a friend of mine had horrible crashes with a
diamond stealth and his 440fx when he switch to a matrox millenium the
problem went away. The matrox meteor is supposed to generate an
illegal PCI signal which kills the PCI bus on PPRO with the 440fx chipset.
Memory aperture for speeding up raw displays is now the responsibility
of the OS and not the BIOS so to get maximum display bandwith the OS
or X server needs to program the chipset to disable caching on a
given memory display region.
Amancio
>From The Desk Of Snob Art Genre :
> On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Steven Wallace wrote:
>
> >
> > I wanted some input regarding Pentium Pro machines.
> > Has anyone had any problems with the hardware and/or using it with
> > FreeBSD?
> >
> > Are there any problems with the PP chipset(is the latest Orion II or someth
ing?)
> > I remember hearing about PCI problems with the chipset. Someone
> > told me they still have problems in orion II. Is this true?
> >
> > What motherboards for Pentium Pro are good and reliable?
> >
> > What about multiprocessor support? Does anyone have FreeBSD hacks to
> > support multiple processors? How well is it working?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Steven Wallace
>
> I'm using a PPro-200 with the 440FX chipset, I don't remember its
> nickname. I've had no problems with it at all.
>
>
>
> Ben
>
>
------------------------------
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:36:31 -0800
Subject: Re: Pentium Pro status
>From The Desk Of "Jin Guojun[ITG]" :
> Pentinum.
> Some more performance comparsion willbe found on:
>
> ftp://george.lbl.gov/pub/ccs/performance.ps (p6-7 for P<-->PP).
> It will be updated whenever the new board/machines come in.
Do you mind upgrading your P6 to FreeBSD-2.2 and then running the
benchmarks.
Tnks,
Amancio
------------------------------
From: michael butler <imb@scgt.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:29:54 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: Disk Striping
> Our news servers here, are P166's with 128Mb each, with two Adaptec3940
> PCI cards.
> There are four 4Gig drives, each has its own separage SCSI controller as
> the 3940 has two controllers per card.
> The drives are identical, and in a CCD array.
[ .. ]
> Compared to how we had the news farm before..the CCD is many many times
> faster and more efficient.
With no readers (and therefore no need for .overview files all over the
place to mess things up), this combo will *scream* along quite happily at
better than 10 articles a second iff the accesses for history and articles
are on separate CCD arrays on separate channels. Short of getting "async"
mode to work properly, there's not much better.
The general principle is .. Seeks cost a lot, which can be relieved by
configuring drives (amalgamated or not) to operate on only one part of the
data set (history or articles but not both). Rotational latency costs less
and can be divided by distributing across N drives in a CCD array,
michael
------------------------------
From: sos@FreeBSD.org
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:13:44 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
In reply to Michael Smith who wrote:
>
> Nate Williams stands accused of saying:
> > >
> > > That's all well and good, but it presents a chicken-and-egg situation
> > > for anyone trying to work outside the decades-old BSD model. You may
> > > not consider this a problem; I do. Opinions differ.
> >
> > Yes, but anyone capable of developing a 'cool tool' with TCL that we
> > can't live w/out is capable of installing a port, and *then* showing me
> > how wonderful it is to justify bringing in TCL as part of the base
> > system.
> >
> > Put the cart *before* the horse.
>
> Chicken->egg, egg->chicken? I can say that I wouldn't have undertaken
> what I have if Tcl wasn't a part of the standard system - too many people
> would say "but it needs Tcl, and I don't want to install that because ...".
Because they dont have the space ?? :)
> I figure that once it is clear that Perl is intended to be a part of the
> base system, and that it's a stable item not going anywhere, people
> should pick up and start using it.
>
> And the ultimate comeback is; if I'm wrong, and after 12 months nothing
> has made use of it and everybody hates it, it can go away again. At
> that point, there can be (even though there would be 8) no argument.
THAT has proven almost NEVER to happen :( it will stay and rot in a
corner if that happens.
What is really scaring is the sheer size of our repository, half a year
ago I could have the whole CVS tree plus all CTM patches and and
obj tree on one 500M disk, now only the CVS tree fits there, no CTM
patches, no obj tree. All this **** and we haven gotten any
significant new functionality :(
With this current trend, we'll all be so busy putting in/maintaining
all those *cool tools*, that no real work will be done, and stagnation
on that part is not exactly what we need.
I still vote for ripping out the old (rottet) perl, and TCL, and
then put it in ports where it belongs. I anybody does a multo graeto
tool they want us to use, they can easily get it to install those
tools from ports during thier own install, no excuse there either.
Or we should invent a system (which could be based on the current
contrib system), where its selectable if you want those tools
and the utils that *might* depend on them. This solution I could
live with, and I'm sure many of the other "purists"...
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
So much code to hack -- so little time.
------------------------------
From: Darius Moos <moos@degnet.baynet.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:30:19 -0100
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Sure ... but i tried to compile Perl-5.002 with "-DUNEXEC" so the
"dump <LABEL>" command of perl would use "unexec" instead of "abort".
Emacs itself compiles here also out of the box.
As far as i figured it out, Emacs uses the unexsunos4.c as unexec
but i can not find out, how to merge this function into Perl.
Darius Moos.
Mark Diekhans wrote:
>
> >The unexec-function of emacs is also not trivial to get to compile.
>
> Don't know anything about undump, but the emacs compiles out of the
> box for me on FreeBSD (19.33).
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:16:32 +1030 (CST)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
sos@FreeBSD.org stands accused of saying:
> >
> > Chicken->egg, egg->chicken? I can say that I wouldn't have undertaken
> > what I have if Tcl wasn't a part of the standard system - too many people
> > would say "but it needs Tcl, and I don't want to install that because ...".
>
> Because they dont have the space ?? :)
... or it's "too hard", or "I just don't like it", or whatever.
> Or we should invent a system (which could be based on the current
> contrib system), where its selectable if you want those tools
> and the utils that *might* depend on them. This solution I could
> live with, and I'm sure many of the other "purists"...
This is what I have been pushing for ever since I started this thread.
Is it (technically) possible to put a conditional around the makefiles
for possibly contentious 'contrib' residents so that they won't be
built if the src/contrib/<foo> directory isn't present?
> Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
- --
]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[
]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[
]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[
]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[
]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
------------------------------
From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:29:13 +1030 (CST)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Chuck Robey stands accused of saying:
>
> I would personally kinda like to folk some gui stuff into the
> distribution, so things could get even more friendly, and I don't mean
> initial install, either. This would be absolutely impossible in today's
> one distribution paradigm. Having two dists would kinda free everyone up.
This wants an "xtools" distribution/collection (Tk, pTk etc), and would
probably make you a lot of enemies in the 'anti-bloat' camp. 8(
Given that the tools I'm working are ultimately meant to work with X,
I share your basic goals.
> Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data
- --
]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[
]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[
]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[
]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[
]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
------------------------------
From: Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:43:53 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: panic: ffs_valloc: dup alloc
>
> Question:
>
> it's always the same FS with me that bites the dust. Perhaps a
> previous crash of the machine caused a FS corruption fsck isn't
> picking up on. Has anyone who is being bothered by this dumped the fs
> with *tar* (not dump) and resored to see if that fixes the problem?
>
I might have ased this already, but you do run the latest fsck, including
a patch I installed the other day? Further if it is an FS problem, a tar
won't help. The dump would.
- -Guido
------------------------------
From: sos@freebsd.org
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:45:24 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
In reply to Michael Smith who wrote:
>
> > Or we should invent a system (which could be based on the current
> > contrib system), where its selectable if you want those tools
> > and the utils that *might* depend on them. This solution I could
> > live with, and I'm sure many of the other "purists"...
>
> This is what I have been pushing for ever since I started this thread.
> Is it (technically) possible to put a conditional around the makefiles
> for possibly contentious 'contrib' residents so that they won't be
> built if the src/contrib/<foo> directory isn't present?
We kind of have this allready in the main Makefile (crypto stuff etc)
so the skeletton is there..
Well, it can be done, anybody has some spare slots on thier TODO lists ??
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
So much code to hack -- so little time.
------------------------------
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:18:41 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Smith wrote:
> That is _exactly_ what this thread has been about; ref. my original
> post. In my opinion, the usefulness of Perl in the base system
> outweighs the 'bloat' consideration. I'm aware that bloat is an issue
> of religious importance to some people, and I've been trying to
> encourage one of these people (that isn't as overloaded as the rest of
> us 8) to do something constructive about it without alienating the
> "comfortable system" people by telling them to go pick a pile of
> ports.
Python is more useful to me than Perl. I'd rather see Python go into the
base than Perl. Python has less bloat, is a prettier language, is
stable, and stress-tested (see infoseek).
Of course, we don't want to have a base w/o a Java VM too. Everyone else
has plans to include one.
What the heck, I'll upgrade my PC with 4Gb drives. Disk is cheap.
Regards,
Mike
------------------------------
From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 02:35:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Shouldn't we move this thread to something like chat or to a nice Bar.
The nice thing about Bars is that as the night progresses the topic
does die off 8)
Cheers,
Amancio
>From The Desk Of Michael Hancock :
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > That is _exactly_ what this thread has been about; ref. my original
> > post. In my opinion, the usefulness of Perl in the base system
> > outweighs the 'bloat' consideration. I'm aware that bloat is an issue
> > of religious importance to some people, and I've been trying to
> > encourage one of these people (that isn't as overloaded as the rest of
> > us 8) to do something constructive about it without alienating the
> > "comfortable system" people by telling them to go pick a pile of
> > ports.
>
> Python is more useful to me than Perl. I'd rather see Python go into the
> base than Perl. Python has less bloat, is a prettier language, is
> stable, and stress-tested (see infoseek).
>
> Of course, we don't want to have a base w/o a Java VM too. Everyone else
> has plans to include one.
>
> What the heck, I'll upgrade my PC with 4Gb drives. Disk is cheap.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
------------------------------
From: sos@FreeBSD.org
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:39:57 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
In reply to Michael Hancock who wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> > That is _exactly_ what this thread has been about; ref. my original
> > post. In my opinion, the usefulness of Perl in the base system
> > outweighs the 'bloat' consideration. I'm aware that bloat is an issue
> > of religious importance to some people, and I've been trying to
> > encourage one of these people (that isn't as overloaded as the rest of
> > us 8) to do something constructive about it without alienating the
> > "comfortable system" people by telling them to go pick a pile of
> > ports.
>
> Python is more useful to me than Perl. I'd rather see Python go into the
> base than Perl. Python has less bloat, is a prettier language, is
> stable, and stress-tested (see infoseek).
>
> Of course, we don't want to have a base w/o a Java VM too. Everyone else
Ahh, another one bites the dust...
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Soren Schmidt (sos@FreeBSD.org) FreeBSD Core Team
So much code to hack -- so little time.
------------------------------
From: Gary Clark II <gclarkii@main.gbdata.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 04:44:10 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Nate Williams wrote:
> > That's all well and good, but it presents a chicken-and-egg situation
> > for anyone trying to work outside the decades-old BSD model. You may
> > not consider this a problem; I do. Opinions differ.
This did not stop me from putting my adduser script in the 1.X contrib
tree. I also had a kernel config tool there also.
>
> Yes, but anyone capable of developing a 'cool tool' with TCL that we
> can't live w/out is capable of installing a port, and *then* showing me
> how wonderful it is to justify bringing in TCL as part of the base
> system.
We have one, pkh's bmake script. From what I've seen, the others
are TCL/TK scripts.
>
> Put the cart *before* the horse.
>
> Nate
>
Gary
- --
Gary Clark II (N5VMF) | I speak only for myself and "maybe" my company
gclarkii@GBData.COM | Member of the FreeBSD Doc Team
Providing Internet and ISP startups mail info@GBData.COM for information
FreeBSD FAQ at ftp://ftp.FreeBSD.ORG/pub/FreeBSD/docs/freebsd-faq.ascii
------------------------------
End of hackers-digest V1 #1668
******************************
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611271238_MC1-BC4-D9D9>