On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> If you're mirroring the disk with gmirror, how are you dual-booting the
> disk?
>
> This discussion is about using gmirror to mirror two entire disks, and then
> use GPT to partition the mirror device.
>
> Dual-booting has no bearing on that,
If you're mirroring the disk with gmirror, how are you dual-booting the
disk?
This discussion is about using gmirror to mirror two entire disks, and then
use GPT to partition the mirror device.
Dual-booting has no bearing on that, as gmirror is a FreeBSD-only
technology.
Cheers,
Freddie Cash
fjw
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> And just in case:
>> Unified Extensible Firmware Interface Specification Version 2.3.1, Errata A
>> September 7, 2011 says:
>> [snip]
>>> Two GPT Header structures are stored on the devi
Can't you just create a slice, make a gmirror out of your slice, and
then slice your mirror again? This is the way you would do it for mdadm
on Linux (probably with swap outside the mirror). (and in the old days
you would have 2 copies of /boot non-mirrored; dunno about today)
Am 17.02.2012 22:0
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> And just in case:
> Unified Extensible Firmware Interface Specification Version 2.3.1, Errata A
> September 7, 2011 says:
> [snip]
>> Two GPT Header structures are stored on the device: the primary and the
>> backup. The primary GPT Header mus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
on 17/02/2012 16:28 Hiroki Sato said the following:
> Andriy Gapon wrote in <4f3e3000.9000...@freebsd.org>:
>
> av> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- av> Hash: SHA1 av> av> on 17/02/2012
> 09:04 Hiroki Sato said the following: av> > No, the issue is
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 06:09:55PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Pete French wrote:
> >
> >Should this not be the recommended way of doing things even for MBR
> >disks ? I have a lot of machines booting from gmirror, but we always
> >do it by mirroring MBR partitions (or GPT ones). I cant see wh
> Yes it does? Am I the only one person on the whole earth seeing the big
> difference in easy setup of mirroring two drives instead of many
> individual partitions?
Sorry, I wasnt suggesting that you should always mirror
the indiviudual partititons - just I happen to do that where
I am mixing Z
Pete French wrote:
I wasn't aware you could do that. I was only aware that it was the
other way around. That (my) misconception seems to also be relayed
by others such as Miroslav who said:
Should this not be the recommended way of doing things even for MBR
disks ? I have a lot of machines bo
On 02/17/2012 16:21, Freddie Cash wrote:
[...]
The problem with mirroring partitions is that you thrash the disk
during the rebuild after replacing a failed disk. And the more
partitions you have, the worse it gets.
I guess that if you do per-slice mirroring you should turn off autosync, right
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Freddie Cash wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Pete French wrote:
I wasn't aware you could do that. I was only aware that it was the
other way around. That (my) misconception seems to also be relayed
by others such as Miroslav who said:
Should this not be the rec
on 17/02/2012 16:28 Hiroki Sato said the following:
> Andriy Gapon wrote
> in <4f3e3000.9000...@freebsd.org>:
>
> av> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> av> Hash: SHA1
> av>
> av> on 17/02/2012 09:04 Hiroki Sato said the following:
> av> > No, the issue is our gptloader assumes the backup hea
> The problem with mirroring partitions is that you thrash the disk
> during the rebuild after replacing a failed disk. And the more
> partitions you have, the worse it gets.
yes, this is true - actually I have had this on older
machiens, and have had to stop the rebuilds of each bit until
the ot
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Pete French wrote:
>> I wasn't aware you could do that. I was only aware that it was the
>> other way around. That (my) misconception seems to also be relayed
>> by others such as Miroslav who said:
>
> Should this not be the recommended way of doing things even
Andriy Gapon wrote
in <4f3e3000.9000...@freebsd.org>:
av> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
av> Hash: SHA1
av>
av> on 17/02/2012 09:04 Hiroki Sato said the following:
av> > No, the issue is our gptloader assumes the backup header is always located
av> > at the (physical) last sector while this
> I wasn't aware you could do that. I was only aware that it was the
> other way around. That (my) misconception seems to also be relayed
> by others such as Miroslav who said:
Should this not be the recommended way of doing things even for MBR
disks ? I have a lot of machines booting from gmirr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
on 17/02/2012 09:04 Hiroki Sato said the following:
> No, the issue is our gptloader assumes the backup header is always located
> at the (physical) last sector while this is not mandatory in the UEFI
> specification.
Are you sure?
Unified Extensible
on 17/02/2012 07:37 Freddie Cash said the following:
> Seems to me that we need a GEOM-aware loader
I am also adding a GEOM-aware BIOS/firmware to the wish-list.
--
Andriy Gapon
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailm
Freddie Cash wrote
in :
fj> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
fj> > Jeremy Chadwick wrote
fj> > in <20120217030806.ga62...@icarus.home.lan>:
fj> >
fj> > fr> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:40:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
fj> > fr> > Sorry, I may be misunderstanding your point
; Joe Holden; Alex Samorukov
> Subject: Re: New BSD Installer
>
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:32:51 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On 2/10/2012 7:47 PM, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> > > I am highly against reverting. Old installer is not GPT
> aware and in fact > > is unma
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote
> in <20120217030806.ga62...@icarus.home.lan>:
>
> fr> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:40:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> fr> > Sorry, I may be misunderstanding your point. GEOM classes don't
> fr> > lie, they accurately r
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:53PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
>
>
> (...Linux mdadm)
>
>> So for version 0.90 of their metadata format, you lose drive capacity by
>> about 64-128KBytes, given th
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:40:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:53PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
(...Linux mdadm)
So for version 0.90 of their metadata format, you lose drive
Jeremy Chadwick wrote
in <20120217030806.ga62...@icarus.home.lan>:
fr> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:40:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
fr> > Sorry, I may be misunderstanding your point. GEOM classes don't
fr> > lie, they accurately represent the space. The space provided by a
fr> > gmirror is o
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
wrote:
> I'm surprised that given the nature of these two bits (GPT vs. GEOM),
> that the GEOM layer cannot simply lie about the full capacity of the
> partition, or something to that effect.
>
GEOM can already do this. gvirstor and gnop do somethi
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 07:40:35PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:53PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
>
> (...Linux mdadm)
> >So for version 0.90 of their metadata format, you lose drive capacity by
> >about 64-128KBytes, gi
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:53PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
(...Linux mdadm)
So for version 0.90 of their metadata format, you lose drive capacity by
about 64-128KBytes, given that the space is needed for metadata. For
version 1.0, I'm not sure.
In article <20120217021019.ga61...@icarus.home.lan>,
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
>So for version 0.90 of their metadata format, you lose drive capacity by
>about 64-128KBytes, given that the space is needed for metadata.
Which is exactly what geom_mirror does, amazingly enough. (Except, of
course,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:34:53PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:08:28AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> >>
> >>Please don't mix two things together. gpart can replace fdisk and
> >>bsdlabel, but GPT vs. MBR is a different th
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:08:28AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Please don't mix two things together. gpart can replace fdisk and
bsdlabel, but GPT vs. MBR is a different thing. GPT doesn't play
nice with GEOM classes which store their metadata on l
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:08:28AM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> Mike Andrews wrote:
> >On 2/14/2012 3:05 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
> >>Please don't get rid of fdisk or bsdlabel as they are (and forever
> >>will be)
> >>required to do things like:
> >>
> >>1. scripted formatting of a thumb drive
>
Mike Andrews wrote:
On 2/14/2012 3:05 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
Please don't get rid of fdisk or bsdlabel as they are (and forever
will be)
required to do things like:
1. scripted formatting of a thumb drive
2. automated probing of disk information (fdisk -p)
3. Other tasks that are not suitably
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 09:43 -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> I'm with you on this one. I really don't like the single-"/" setup.
>
>
> > while booting multiple systems on GPT also seems to require Linux tools.
> >
> > I don't know whether this move away from BSD traditional filesystem
> > partitioni
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Mike Andrews
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:11 PM
> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: New BSD Installer
>
> On 2/14/2012 3:
On 2/14/2012 3:05 PM, Devin Teske wrote:
Please don't get rid of fdisk or bsdlabel as they are (and forever will be)
required to do things like:
1. scripted formatting of a thumb drive
2. automated probing of disk information (fdisk -p)
3. Other tasks that are not suitably handled by curses-ba
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:05:31PM -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
> Please don't get rid of fdisk or bsdlabel as they are (and forever will be)
> required to do things like:
>
> 1. scripted formatting of a thumb drive
Can't this be done with gpart(8)? There are scripts all over the web
and on the lis
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Oberman [mailto:kob6...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:51 AM
> To: Devin Teske
> Cc: Ian Smith; Bruce Cran; Alex Samorukov; Joe Holden; FreeBSD Stable Mailing
> List
> Subject: Re: New BSD Installer
>
> On T
n
>> Cc: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List; Joe Holden; Alex Samorukov
>> Subject: Re: New BSD Installer
>>
>> Strangely, the big push to GPT partitions was oft said to be because MBR
>> slices provided too few partitions.
>
> That's part of it (no pun intended).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Lars Engels
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:28 AM
> To: Ian Smith
> Cc: Bruce Cran; Alex Samorukov; Joe Holden; FreeBSD Stable Mailing List
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> sta...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Ian Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:15 AM
> To: Bruce Cran
> Cc: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List; Joe Holden; Alex Samorukov
> Subject:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:15:17AM +1100, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:32:51 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> > On 2/10/2012 7:47 PM, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> > > I am highly against reverting. Old installer is not GPT aware and in fact
> > > is unmaintained for a very long time.
> >
>
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 15:32:51 +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 7:47 PM, Alex Samorukov wrote:
> > I am highly against reverting. Old installer is not GPT aware and in fact
> > is unmaintained for a very long time.
>
> That's not really correct: quite a lot of work was done on it last ye
On 13/02/2012 17:41, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
On 13 feb 2012, at 17:08, Bruce Cran wrote:
pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
created as an interim solution.
I'll take your word for it, but as far as I know the backend is
shell-based as well.
Yes, they'r
On 13 feb 2012, at 17:08, Bruce Cran wrote:
> pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
> created as an interim solution.
I'll take your word for it, but as far as I know the backend is
shell-based as well.
/Andreas
>
> --
> Bruce Cran
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
pc-sysinstall doesn't work (well?) on non-x86 platforms so bsdinstall was
created as an interim solution.
--
Bruce Cran
Sent from my iPhone
On 13 Feb 2012, at 15:44, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, George Kontostanos
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think that reverting is e
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:58 PM, George Kontostanos
wrote:
> I don't think that reverting is either an option or a solution at this
> point. You can consider filing PRs.
>
How compatible is bsdinstaller with pc-sysinstaller? Are there any notes on
why a new installer was created over reusing pc-s
I don't think that reverting is either an option or a solution at this
point. You can consider filing PRs.
--
George Kontostanos
Aicom telecoms ltd
http://www.aisecure.net
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/list
On 2/10/2012 7:47 PM, Alex Samorukov wrote:
I am highly against reverting. Old installer is not GPT aware and in
fact is unmaintained for a very long time.
That's not really correct: quite a lot of work was done on it last year.
--
Bruce
___
freebsd-
On 11/02/2012, at 6:32, Joe Holden wrote:
> On a related note - does the new installer have any kind of config file for
> unattended installs a la sysinstall?
No it doesn't, that said since the new release CD is a live file system (vs the
old MFS on a CD kludge) it is much much easier to script
Alex Samorukov writes:
> On 02/10/2012 06:56 PM, Joe Holden wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>> This should really be reverted to sysinstall until the new installer
>> is at least in a state where it consistently works... the most
>> important part of a new users experience is the installer and the
>> few new
Joe Holden wrote:
Alex Samorukov wrote:
On 02/10/2012 06:56 PM, Joe Holden wrote:
Guys,
This should really be reverted to sysinstall until the new installer
is at least in a state where it consistently works... the most
important part of a new users experience is the installer and the few
n
Alex Samorukov wrote:
On 02/10/2012 06:56 PM, Joe Holden wrote:
Guys,
This should really be reverted to sysinstall until the new installer
is at least in a state where it consistently works... the most
important part of a new users experience is the installer and the few
new installs I have
On 02/10/2012 06:56 PM, Joe Holden wrote:
Guys,
This should really be reverted to sysinstall until the new installer
is at least in a state where it consistently works... the most
important part of a new users experience is the installer and the few
new installs I have done lately I've just i
Joe Holden wrote:
Guys,
This should really be reverted to sysinstall until the new installer is
at least in a state where it consistently works... the most important
part of a new users experience is the installer and the few new installs
I have done lately I've just installed 8.2 and upgrade
54 matches
Mail list logo
