[head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2012-11-28 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-11-28 08:20:00 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-11-28 08:20:00 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2012-

ZFS: ZIL with only one additional disk and how secure?

2012-11-28 Thread O. Hartmann
Hello, I have a naive question. I read about speeding up NFSv4 shared ZFS array. I use a RAIDZ1 volume made up from 5 times 3TB harddrives, attached to a ICH10 SATA controller on a FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT box. The maximum performance of that array never goes beyond 45 - 51 MB/s and levels out very oft

Re: ZFS: ZIL with only one additional disk and how secure?

2012-11-28 Thread Olivier Smedts
Hi, 2012/11/28 O. Hartmann : > Hello, > I have a naive question. > I read about speeding up NFSv4 shared ZFS array. I use a RAIDZ1 volume > made up from 5 times 3TB harddrives, attached to a ICH10 SATA controller > on a FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT box. The maximum performance of that array > never goes b

Re: ZFS: ZIL with only one additional disk and how secure?

2012-11-28 Thread O. Hartmann
On 11/28/12 14:38, Olivier Smedts wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/11/28 O. Hartmann : >> Hello, >> I have a naive question. >> I read about speeding up NFSv4 shared ZFS array. I use a RAIDZ1 volume >> made up from 5 times 3TB harddrives, attached to a ICH10 SATA controller >> on a FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT box.

[HEADSUP] zfs root pool mounting

2012-11-28 Thread Andriy Gapon
Recently some changes were made to how a root pool is opened for root filesystem mounting. Previously the root pool had to be present in zpool.cache. Now it is automatically discovered by probing available GEOM providers. The new scheme is believed to be more flexible. For example, it allows to

[head tinderbox] failure on arm/arm

2012-11-28 Thread FreeBSD Tinderbox
TB --- 2012-11-28 18:20:01 - tinderbox 2.9 running on freebsd-current.sentex.ca TB --- 2012-11-28 18:20:01 - FreeBSD freebsd-current.sentex.ca 8.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 8.3-PRERELEASE #0: Mon Mar 26 13:54:12 EDT 2012 d...@freebsd-current.sentex.ca:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64 TB --- 2012-

Re: Is cross-world building broken?

2012-11-28 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Adrian Chadd wrote: .. so, Nathan Whitehorn discovered that DESTDIR should be specified in environment, not on the command line. Um, we have lots of things that document passing DESTDIR on the command line. Like, src/UPDATING. Something seems wrong, here... -Ben _

Re: Is cross-world building broken?

2012-11-28 Thread Adrian Chadd
On 28 November 2012 11:49, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Um, we have lots of things that document passing DESTDIR on the command > line. Like, src/UPDATING. Something seems wrong, here... Right. Andrew thinks that the MMAKE variables for building the initial make aren't setting DESTDIR correctly. We

Re: ZFS: ZIL with only one additional disk and how secure?

2012-11-28 Thread Rick Macklem
Olivier Smedts wrote: > Hi, > > 2012/11/28 O. Hartmann : > > Hello, > > I have a naive question. > > I read about speeding up NFSv4 shared ZFS array. I use a RAIDZ1 > > volume > > made up from 5 times 3TB harddrives, attached to a ICH10 SATA > > controller > > on a FreeBSD 10.0-CURRENT box. The ma

Re: Is cross-world building broken?

2012-11-28 Thread Garrett Cooper
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > top posting, out of laziness and busy-ness at work.. > > Ok. So: > > * make installworld/installkernel/distribution - set DESTDIR on the command > line > * make buildworld/make buildkernel/make - > don't set DESTDIR? (re-CCing -current@)