In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pedro Martelletto writes:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> > but certainly diverging disklabels can explain the problem I outlined
> > in the first message to this thread
>
> Uh, yes, maybe. I didn't read it, to be honest. I just loo
ECTED]>
Subject: Re: sharing ffs filesystems between NetBSD and OpenBSD
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pedro Martelletto writes:
> How could I possibly have missed that question...
>
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> > By the way, when will ffs2 be
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 09:53:43AM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> but certainly diverging disklabels can explain the problem I outlined
> in the first message to this thread
Uh, yes, maybe. I didn't read it, to be honest. I just looked at the Ted
mail you were pointed at. That's definitely talking a
How could I possibly have missed that question...
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 11:13:06AM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> By the way, when will ffs2 be available in OpenBSD? From the changelogs
> I see that there is some work being done in preparation for ffs2, these
> are excellent news.
Kernel support
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pedro Martelletto writes:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:24:55PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> > Indeed, it is a BSD disklabel related problem not a ffs's one.
>
> It *is* a FFS problem. The superblocks are different.
The BSD disklabel provides information not only ab
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 07:24:55PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Indeed, it is a BSD disklabel related problem not a ffs's one.
It *is* a FFS problem. The superblocks are different.
-p.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, viq writes:
> On Tuesday 05 September 2006 19:24, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the excellent reference you provided in your email.
> > Indeed, it is a BSD disklabel related problem not a ffs's one. And
> > it seems a serious one!
>
> I was about to
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 19:24, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Hi viq!
>
> Sorry, I have read your message right now (...I am not subscribed to
> this mailing list, I was looking at MARC as it seems the most up to
> date archive, and found your answer.)
>
> Thanks a lot for the excellent reference you p
Hi viq!
Sorry, I have read your message right now (...I am not subscribed to
this mailing list, I was looking at MARC as it seems the most up to
date archive, and found your answer.)
Thanks a lot for the excellent reference you provided in your email.
Indeed, it is a BSD disklabel related problem
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeff Quast writes:
> On 9/5/06, Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I am trying to understand an odd behaviour in the Berkeley Fast File
> > System as implemented in both NetBSD and OpenBSD. My main concern
>
> > [...] Can it be
> > a proble
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 11:13, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I am trying to understand an odd behaviour in the Berkeley Fast File
> System as implemented in both NetBSD and OpenBSD. My main concern
> is not getting a workaround for this problem (hopefully, I found one)
> but understanding
On 9/5/06, Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello!
I am trying to understand an odd behaviour in the Berkeley Fast File
System as implemented in both NetBSD and OpenBSD. My main concern
[...] Can it be
a problem when sharing these drives with non-i386 architectures?
Guessing that y
Hello!
I am trying to understand an odd behaviour in the Berkeley Fast File
System as implemented in both NetBSD and OpenBSD. My main concern
is not getting a workaround for this problem (hopefully, I found one)
but understanding if there are hidden issues than can damage files
stored in these sh
13 matches
Mail list logo
