From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 29 08:42:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org 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 2D80816A41F for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:42:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [166.70.252.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1C8143D62 for ; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:42:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.222.227] (helo=[192.168.99.68]) by hobbiton.shire.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.51) id 1DyQSG-00028n-UO; Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:42:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050729012030.068245a0@cobalt.antimatter.net> References: <164459CB-E774-47C1-BFE5-A64A232A4F31@shire.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20050729012030.068245a0@cobalt.antimatter.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 02:42:56 -0600 To: Glenn Dawson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.733) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.161.222.227 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chad@shire.net X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on hobbiton.shire.net); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: URGENT -- AP #1 (PHY #1) failed -- what does this mean? 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: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 08:42:59 -0000 On Jul 29, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Glenn Dawson wrote: > At 12:51 AM 7/29/2005, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: > >> Hi >> >> >> Now when it boots it comes up and >> >> real memory = 3758030848 (3583 MB) >> avail memory = 3678240768 (3507 MB) >> ACPI APIC Table: >> AP #1 (PHY# 1) failed! >> panic y/n? [y] >> >> >> What does this mean (and what do I do about it)? >> > > That basically means that the kernel failed to start the second CPU. Ok, thanks. Googling showed that absent other signs of a true HW problem, others have powercycled and the problem has gone away. That seems to have worked for me as well. Will monitor the situation. Thanks Chad > > -Glenn > --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad@shire.net