Hi,
I'm curious about GELIs theoretical behavior when faced with errors, and also
any experience anyone might have.
As an example, if I run ZFS with raidz over X drives, then the zpool should
have no issue surviving the complete loss of a full disk. Also, the familiar
"FAILURE - READ_DMA" or
On 10. mars 2011, at 18.38, 6412037...@email.uscc.net wrote:
> Does OpenBSD use the same kernel as FreeBSD?
I think your question about the relationship between *nixes can best be
answered by a 4487 × 29437 diagram, which can be found in several formats here:
http://www.unix-diagram.org/
Terje
On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) separated in two
> pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest available to configure as
> storage.
ZFS will want to write to it's ZIL (zfs intent log) before writing to
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> Got a measly 74MB/sec.
You can't ask for advice, get it, do something completely different, and then
complain that it didn't work.
Neither can you ask people to donate their time, if you won't spend yours.
In other words: if yo
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
> zpool create data da1
> zfs create data/maildomains
> zfs set sync=disabled data/maildomains
Just for the archives... sync=disabled won't disable disable the zil, it'll
disable waiting for a disk-flush on fsync etc. With a battery ba
On 2. apr. 2013, at 13.44, Joar Jegleim wrote:
> So my question(s) to the list would be:
> In my setup have I taken the use case for zfs send / receive too far
> (?) as in, it's not meant for this kind of syncing and this often, so
> there's actually nothing 'wrong'.
I'm not sure if you've taken i
On 12. mai 2013, at 15:21, Roland van Laar wrote:
> I see that all the disks get the same partitions, including swap and boot?
> Why is that? And do I need those 5 boot and swap partitions?
You don't need them, but there's a good chance you'll want them.
Long story, short version: with raidz a
On 26. mai 2013, at 10:58, "M. V." wrote:
> But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have swap
> partition for my server, and having swap partition could make my server
> unstable
Any chance this could be a simple misunderstanding?
That he objected to the thought of the serv
On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Is this normal in your experience?
Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first?
If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major
factor.
Terje
___
On 29. juli 2013, at 18:38, "Zyumbilev, Peter" wrote:
> Not sure what is the best way nowadays to get own /24 or at least /26 ?
I don't think you ever said if this was two links from the same provider, or
two different providers. That's a huge factor in what your options are.
You'll have a har
On 4. aug. 2013, at 12:54, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> The program writing the log is actually called flubnutz and it doesn't play
> nice with newsyslog, reopen handles on a signal or anything else
Then you're out of luck for normal rotation. No matter if you rename the file,
or even delete it, it
On 8. aug. 2013, at 00:08, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> As a suggestion, what happens if you read from the drives directly? Boot in
> single user and try reading a Gb or two using /bin/dd. It might eliminate or
> confirm a problem with ZFS.
If not too inconvenient, it'd be very interesting to see w
On 13. aug. 2013, at 06:14, Shane Ambler wrote:
> If you missed the change, 9.3 is implementing shared memory using mmap.
But still using sysvipc for some locks/mutexes, so doesn't allow you to run
"sysvipc-free".
Terje
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd
On 12. aug. 2013, at 19.46, Trond Endrestøl wrote:
> If you start the jail manually using jail(8), then /etc/jail.conf
> comes into play, whereas the lines in /etc/rc.conf is used during
> automatic startup of the jails when the host is rebooted. The whole
> arrangement seems unnecessary redunda
On 13. aug. 2013, at 16:30, "O. Hartmann" wrote:
> What is going wrong?
Are you unable to connect, or do you get an error message? If you do, what is
it?
Terje
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fr
On 16. aug. 2013, at 19:17, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> Has anyone actually done this, and if so, how?
This is wrong on so many levels, and you'll have to work around all og them.
Yes, you can use nat, but what about adress-resolution? And so on.
If it's a specific thing you need to work - a spes
On 17. aug. 2013, at 12:42, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> The setup is basically as described and the desired outcome is to NAT "the
> other end" so the addresses appear different.
That's a solution to a problem, but I don't yet know what the problem is, which
makes it harder to give any advice.
D
On 17. aug. 2013, at 16:37, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> This is just the sort of problem Google will have when it buys Facebook :-)
Probably not. If Google were to buy Facebook, I'm confident they'd be able to
renumber their networks if they have to.
> Your explanation of the foul-up possible wit
On 18. aug. 2013, at 12.20, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> I'm not sure that TLS would cause more problems than any other packets, but
> as you point out, the exercise is bound to be full of pooh traps as yet
> undiscovered. FTP should be interesting, for a start. But for most things,
> why would swap
On 18. aug. 2013, at 02.43, Adam Vande More wrote:
> > What about SSL/TLS for example? How would the router swap the header in an
> > encrypted session?
>
> Same as it would any sessions since only the payload is encrypted. What
> Frank calls basic nat, most people call static nat(at least peo
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> and while you can rewrite that on a NAT-box using an application level
> gateway, you can not do that if the session is using SSL or TLS.
>
> Complete BS.
This seems to come down to a misunderstanding in the examples drawn up, and of
TCP/IP
On 25. sep. 2013, at 06:59, Tyler Sweet wrote:
> I tried reinstalling the boot blocks from both
> the fixit live filesystem and also mounting zroot and using the files
> there in case they were different.
Disclaimer: I haven't gotten (enough) morning-coffee yet, but...
Disclaimer 2: at times tra
On 25. sep. 2013, at 09.00, Ewald Jenisch wrote:
o) Will upgrading kernel/system using
> svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/ /usr/src
> bring a 9.2-RC4 installed system up to date once 9.2 final is released?
Two options:
base/stable/9 - track 9-STABLE
base/releng/9.2 - track 9.2-security
On 27. sep. 2013, at 20:20, Laurent SALIN wrote:
> I've got a "bad" solution, use unbound on the second VPS and maybe tell
> him to ask the 1rst VPS on the unusual tcp/udp port
Why is that a "bad" solution?
You'd cache locally, which is often considered a good thing?
Granted, it's a bit of a w
On 28. sep. 2013, at 00:03, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> If I understand the way it works correctly, the resolver pulls a list of the
> NS and hard-sets the port number for each to 53 (via a manifest constant) .
> See libc/resolv/res_init.c. All you need to do(!) is change this to a value
> of you
On 28. sep. 2013, at 15:50, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
> Given that BIND can happily listen on ports other than 53 and OpenBSD allows
> a port to be specified against each nameserver in resolv.conf, it does not
> seem an unreasonable question to me.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding...
Not sure
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:43 AM, yudi v wrote:
> Generally, it's recommended to let ZFS manage the whole disk if possible,
> so I was wondering if the second option is better.
> I will be using couple of 3TB HDDs mirrored for data and want to encrypt
> them.
IIRC, there is/was a major performance-dif
27 matches
Mail list logo
