On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:41:40PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
> This is very odd on several fronts. First, someone has obviously
> been writing on the MBR for no good reason. I just tested an fdisk
> compiled to day and noticed no oddities on my i386.
>
> Second, the fact that you find a d
On 6/8/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> c: 7168196763 unused 0 0 # Cyl 0*- 4461
> d: 210445263 4.2BSD 2048 16384 132 # Cyl 0*- 130
Ah -- your 'c' partition does not start at 0.
It's an old FreeBSD partition on yo
> c: 7168196763 unused 0 0 # Cyl 0*-
> 4461
> d: 210445263 4.2BSD 2048 16384 132 # Cyl 0*-
> 130
Ah -- your 'c' partition does not start at 0.
It's an old FreeBSD partition on your disk. That should not work; it
is bunk. W
This is very odd on several fronts. First, someone has obviously
been writing on the MBR for no good reason. I just tested an fdisk
compiled to day and noticed no oddities on my i386.
Second, the fact that you find a disklabel. Since we no longer store
or look for disklabels in FreeBSD partitions
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:58:18PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:50:24PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > I have thinking a bit more about the problem, and it is very likely the
> > following scenario happened:
> >
> > 1. Kernel upgrade by source.
> >
> > 2. Reboot
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 09:06:32AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There were some validations checkc added to partition
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 07:50:24PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> I have thinking a bit more about the problem, and it is very likely the
> following scenario happened:
>
> 1. Kernel upgrade by source.
>
> 2. Reboot
>
> 3. Kernel reads old disklabel format and converts it in-memory to the
> new v
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> We have seen some reports now on disappearing paritions. On sparc and
> sparc64, there were actual bugs that have been fixed now.
>
> For all platforms, the suspect new consistency checking code now been
> disabled until we find out what is causing the
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Emilio Perea wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > There were some validations checkc added to partitions. If a bad
> > partition is found, it will be marked "unused". The checks were a
> > little to strict for some cases. A fix for that we
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:02:59PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> > > > > I follo
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:02:59PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> > > > I follow -current on an i386 at work and an amd64 at home, and ra
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:02:59PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> > > I follow -current on an i386 at work and an amd64 at home, and rarely
> > > run into any problem which is not self-in
On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:51:48AM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> There were some validations checkc added to partitions. If a bad
> partition is found, it will be marked "unused". The checks were a
> little to strict for some cases. A fix for that went in yesterday, so
> try a new snap.
>
> If th
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Markus Lude wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:02:59PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> > I follow -current on an i386 at work and an amd64 at home, and rarely
> > run into any problem which is not self-inflicted. So when I had a weird
> > experience this weekend, I assumed it wa
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:02:59PM -0500, Emilio Perea wrote:
> I follow -current on an i386 at work and an amd64 at home, and rarely
> run into any problem which is not self-inflicted. So when I had a weird
> experience this weekend, I assumed it was my fault.
>
> What happened was that after th
I follow -current on an i386 at work and an amd64 at home, and rarely
run into any problem which is not self-inflicted. So when I had a weird
experience this weekend, I assumed it was my fault.
What happened was that after the usual sequence of [build kernel;
reboot; build userland; reboot] the s
16 matches
Mail list logo
