> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700
> Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:11 -0700
> > > Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 03:53:38PM +0300, Evr
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 01:07:44PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:16PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700
> > > > Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Mike Meyer wro
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:42:04PM +0400, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
> Little time ago I was misleaded by the certain people and got an
> idea that VirtualBox actually works on FreeBSD, so I've made a draft
> port for it. It doesn't actually work, but since I've spent several
> hours hacking it and ma
On 11 Oct 2008, at 12:07, Danny Braniss wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:16PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:11 -0700
Jeremy C
:> boot2/loader does not speak ZFS -- this is why you need the /boot UFS2
:> partition. This is an annoyance.
:>
:> For the final "stage/step", vfs.root.mountfrom="zfs:mypool/root" in
:> loader.conf will cause FreeBSD to mount the root filesystem from ZFS.
:> This works fine.
:
:so the answer is
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:16PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700
> > > Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:11 -0700
> > > > > Jeremy Chadwic
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:16PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:42:49 -0700
> > Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:29:52AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:41:11 -0700
> > > > Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROT
> > > > so can Freebsd boot off a ZFS root? in stable? current? ...
> > >
> > > boot0 doesn't apply here; it cares about what's at sector 0 on the
> > > disk, not filesystems.
> > >
> > > boot2/loader does not speak ZFS -- this is why you need the /boot UFS2
> > > partition. This is an annoyanc
:To Matt:
: since 'small' nowadays is big enough to hold /, what advantages are
there
:in having root split up?
:also, having this split personality, what if the disk goes? the hammer/zfs
:is probably raided ...
You mean /boot + root , or do you mean /root vs /usr vs /home? I'll
an
On 10/11/08, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With regards to the traditional BSD partitioning scheme, having a
> separate /usr, /home, /tmp, etc... there's no reason to do that stuff
> any more with ZFS (or HAMMER).
As separate partitions, no. As separate filesystems, defi
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Freddie Cash wrote:
On 10/11/08, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With regards to the traditional BSD partitioning scheme, having a
separate /usr, /home, /tmp, etc... there's no reason to do that stuff
any more with ZFS (or HAMMER).
As separate partit
On 10/11/08, Danny Braniss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'm asking, because I want to deploy some zfs fileservers soon, and so
>> > far the solution is either PXE boot, or keep one disk UFS (or boot off a
>> > USB)
For the servers we're deploying FreeBSD+ZFS on, mainly large backup
systems with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Matt,
Matthew Dillon wrote:
[...]
> /boot can be as complex as boot2 allows. There's nothing preventing
> it from being RAIDed if boot2 supported that, and there's nothing
> preventing it (once you had ZFS boot capabilities) from bein
On Saturday 11 October 2008 21:53:35 Nate Eldredge wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Freddie Cash wrote:
> > On 10/11/08, Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> With regards to the traditional BSD partitioning scheme, having a
> >> separate /usr, /home, /tmp, etc... there's no reason to
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote:
FWIW, my system is amd64 with 1 G of memory, which the page implies is
insufficient. Is it really?
This may be purely subjective, as I have never bench marked the speeds,
but
when I was first testing zfs on a i386 machine with 1gig ram, I
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:57 AM, O. Hartmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 19:20:07 -0400
>>> Alexander Kabaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
HEADS UP: I will start imp
Let's say I have signal(3) handler set.
And I know exactly what instruction caused SEGV and why.
Is there a way to access from signal handler CPU registers as they
were before signal, modify some of them, clear the signal and
continue from the instruction that caused SEGV initially?
I see that i
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008, Yuri wrote:
Let's say I have signal(3) handler set.
And I know exactly what instruction caused SEGV and why.
Is there a way to access from signal handler CPU registers as they
were before signal, modify some of them, clear the signal and
continue from the instruction that c
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:24:31 -0700
Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm asking, because I want to deploy some zfs fileservers soon, and so
> > far the solution is either PXE boot, or keep one disk UFS (or boot off a
> > USB)
> > Today's /(root+usr) is somewhere between .5 to 1Gb(kern
On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:37:10 +
"Freddie Cash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Most linux dists don't bother with multiple partitions any more.
> > They just have '/' and maybe a small boot partition, and that's it.
>
> Heh, that's more proof of the difficulties inherent with old-school
20 matches
Mail list logo
