Hello NetBSD community,
I am arjun and would like to participate in Google’s Summer of Code
2022. I’ve always wanted to participate in open source work and am excited to
start here :^)
The inetd enhancements project caught my eye, particularly the
"pre-forking multiple children
Hello Arjun,
I wrote t_inetd.c as part of my senior project for college six months
ago (as part of implementing some of the "inetd enhancements"
project).
It's most likely my fault it isn't working. t_inetd.c is quite fragile
since it just uses a range of ports on the host machine.
You could try c
[ Moving this from source-changes-d to tech-userlevel and combining
a couple of messages with one rambling reply. ]
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Simon Burge writes:
>
> > I'm running with a complete ZFS-only setup with no legacy mounts. This
> > is my basic ZFS layout (leaving out a few mounts that don
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
Building (or being able to build) is not critical to having the
machine runni
Date:Tue, 15 Mar 2022 01:51:55 +1100
From:Simon Burge
Message-ID: <20220314145155.ec2bd...@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
| Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Not for Paul's reason ("critical" here has nothing to do with importance
or r
Simon Burge writes:
> I'm using ZFS as my root filesystem, with the EFI boot loader reading
> the kernel from the ZFS root filesystem. This is based on the the
> FreeBSD libsa ZFS code. https://github.com/snarkophilus/src/tree/zfsboot
> is this work, and I'm planning on merging into main NetBSD
Paul Goyette writes:
>> Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
>
> Building (or being able to build) is not critical to having the
> machine running (and r
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Paul Goyette
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
>
> > Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD
On Mon, 14 Mar 2022, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Goyette
On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
OS. The /
> I don't see a real problem with deciding to mount all local filesystems
> (marked auto of course) at mouncritlocal time.
What if /usr is on NFS and /usr/local is local?
Paul Goyette wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022, Simon Burge wrote:
>
> > Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
>
> Well, I have a dedicated filesystem for builds, separate from my
> OS. The /build happens to be my nvme SSD.
>
> Building (or being able to build) is not criti
>> Do we have any valid need to have non-critical local filesystems?
I thought so.
> Not for Paul's reason ("critical" here has nothing to do with
> importance or requirement for operation - just mount ordering)
I thought "critical" in the critical_filesystems_{local,remote} sense
meant "contain
> Again we come to what "critical" means. If you have your /build in
> your /etc/fstab, you boot will still fail if you can't mount that
> filesystem (right)?
In my experience, yes, and that is a problem. There really should be a
way to mark an fstab entry "process this if you can, but if you ca
Simon Burge writes:
> [ Moving this from source-changes-d to tech-userlevel and combining
> a couple of messages with one rambling reply. ]
>
[snip]
> I'm using ZFS as my root filesystem, with the EFI boot loader reading
> the kernel from the ZFS root filesystem. This is based on the the
> Fre
Date:Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:16:24 -0400
From:Brad Spencer
Message-ID:
| I can't really think of any time when a local filesystem was optional.
That happens all the time, particularly if you consider that filesystems
are first class objects that deserve to be used, an
> I wrote t_inetd.c as part of my senior project for college six months
> ago (as part of implementing some of the "inetd enhancements"
> project).
> It's most likely my fault it isn't working. t_inetd.c is quite fragile
> since it just uses a range of ports on the host machine.
> You could try c
I guess looking at the test output again, it looks like inetd isn't
reading the config file (inetd_ratelimit.conf) properly. Notice the
lines that say "FREE", meaning it deleted those services. I think
what's going on is you have the current version of inetd installed on
your machine, which is what
Brad Spencer writes:
> The point is that by need /usr/sources has to be realized in the system
> after / and /usr are available and right now those can't be a ZFS pool
> themselves (well, /usr COULD be, but I can't really see how / could).
> This, at least in my opinion, is not a complicated nor
Greg Troxel writes:
> Brad Spencer writes:
>
>> The point is that by need /usr/sources has to be realized in the system
>> after / and /usr are available and right now those can't be a ZFS pool
>> themselves (well, /usr COULD be, but I can't really see how / could).
>> This, at least in my opini
> I think what's going on is you have the current version of inetd installed on
> your machine, which is what the test cases run
What do you mean by “current”?
> You'll have to go to the usr.sbin/inetd source directory and do "make
> install”,
> which will replace the program that's installed
20 matches
Mail list logo
