on 22/08/2011 04:34 Garrett Cooper said the following:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Hi,
>>Long story short, I was running a UP kernel on a netbook trying to
>> stimulate a crash and when I did dump, it would periodically fail
>> non-recursive mutex failure with t
On 22.08.2011 4:00, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> The larger problem is that this behavior means that destroying gparts
> sometimes doesn't work at
> all. For instance, if you have nested partitioning like MBR+BSD (or EBR) it
> is not possible to
> destroy the underlying MBR geom without committing t
Quoting "Adrian Chadd" :
I totally get it.
However, an installer is user-facing (here), as well as system-facing.
As much as I understand the logic behind it, it is still going to
surprise people to find that their partition tables are modified at
any point before that final "commit".
Linux in
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011, Rick Macklem wrote:
Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Rick Macklem wrote:
If anyone thinks using a fixed table to assign vfc_typenum for known
file system types is a bad idea, please let us know.
Fixed table sounds like a good plan.
Is there a reason for/agains
I totally get it.
However, an installer is user-facing (here), as well as system-facing.
As much as I understand the logic behind it, it is still going to
surprise people to find that their partition tables are modified at
any point before that final "commit".
Linux installers manage to do it. :-
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 6:55 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 06:26:45PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:48 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:17:12AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, ? wrote:
>
Doing it that way is really, really error-prone, because you have to
guess (a) whether gpart will accept certain configurations and (b) how
it will handle requests. On some schemes, partititions have to be
aligned or sized in particular ways and have various limitations.
Depending on the module
Honestly - if you're relying on doing anything that isn't read-only w/
GEOM right until "commit", I think you're doing it wrong.
If anything, you should write something which manipulates geom tables
in userland, and can have a geom database populated from the kernel.
All of your subsequent tools (
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 06:26:45PM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:48 PM, YongHyeon PYUN wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:17:12AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, ? wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Garrett Cooper
> >>
On Aug 21, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>
>>> The regular partitioning editor only commits early in this particular case,
>>> and asks about each subpartition tree separately with a big scary dialog
>>> box. In the spirit of the autopartitioner, it makes one large scary dialog,
>
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:55 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Hi,
> Long story short, I was running a UP kernel on a netbook trying to
> stimulate a crash and when I did dump, it would periodically fail
> non-recursive mutex failure with the output shown below (I caught it
> once, but the other time
On 08/21/11 20:28, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Aug 21, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
No, it's stupider than that. When you destroy a gpart without committing, the
GEOM itself lingers as a (none)-type partitioning. This of course makes sense,
since that ghost geom is what is maintain
On Aug 21, 2011, at 5:00 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
> No, it's stupider than that. When you destroy a gpart without committing, the
> GEOM itself lingers as a (none)-type partitioning. This of course makes
> sense, since that ghost geom is what is maintaining all the state, but
> sometimes
Hi Rick,
Rick Macklem wrote
in <59520805.118597.1313885734529.javamail.r...@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>:
rm> Hiroki, could you please test the attached patch.
rm>
rm> One problem with this patch is that I don't know how to create a fixed
rm> table that matches what systems would already have been get
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
> On 08/21/11 18:11, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>>
>>> gpart does not support (well, anyway) changing the underlying partition
>>> table format without committing changes. Replacing th
On 08/21/11 18:11, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
gpart does not support (well, anyway) changing the underlying partition table
format without committing changes. Replacing the partition scheme, which this
does, is such an operation.
Weird. I coul
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:17:12AM -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> ? ?When loading if_alc as a module on my netbook and running
> >> /etc/rc.d/netif restart, I can deterministically panic my ne
On 08/21/11 14:41, Kevin Oberman wrote:
2011/8/21 Lev Serebryakov:
Hello, Nathan.
You wrote 21 августа 2011 г., 20:53:22:
GPT is bootable on all x86 systems, with either EFI or BIOS, and is now
Ok, I was not sure here.
The Wikipedia article on GUID Partition Table states that Windows only
On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:32 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>
> gpart does not support (well, anyway) changing the underlying partition table
> format without committing changes. Replacing the partition scheme, which this
> does, is such an operation.
Weird. I could always destroy tables, create new
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Fabian Keil
wrote:
>
> Ashley Williams wrote:
>
> > walltimestamp and timestamp don't appear to be right in BETA-1:
> >
> >
> > # dtrace -qn 'syscall::exec*:return { printf("%Y
> > %s\n",walltimestamp,curpsinfo->pr_psargs); }'
> > 1970 Jan 1 10:00:00 date
> > 197
On 08/21/11 15:53, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matt wrote:
On 08/18/11 16:24, Garrett Cooper wrote:
So, I used the bsdinstaller again on the 9.0-BETA1 media with manual
partitioning. The HP desktop ate up 3 partitions, I inconveniently
forgot that geom can't grok sec
On 08/21/11 15:49, Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
On 08/18/11 18:24, Garrett Cooper wrote:
So, I used the bsdinstaller again on the 9.0-BETA1 media with manual
partitioning. The HP desktop ate up 3 partitions, I inconveniently
forgot that geom c
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Matt wrote:
> On 08/18/11 16:24, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> So, I used the bsdinstaller again on the 9.0-BETA1 media with manual
>> partitioning. The HP desktop ate up 3 partitions, I inconveniently
>> forgot that geom can't grok secondary PC MBR partitions, was f
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Nathan Whitehorn
wrote:
> On 08/18/11 18:24, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>
>> So, I used the bsdinstaller again on the 9.0-BETA1 media with manual
>> partitioning. The HP desktop ate up 3 partitions, I inconveniently
>> forgot that geom can't grok secondary PC MBR parti
2011/8/21 Kevin Oberman :
> 2011/8/21 Lev Serebryakov :
>> Hello, Nathan.
>> You wrote 21 августа 2011 г., 20:53:22:
>>
>>> GPT is bootable on all x86 systems, with either EFI or BIOS, and is now
>> Ok, I was not sure here.
>
> The Wikipedia article on GUID Partition Table states that Windows onl
And if you want to run bsdinstall after installation for creating new
partitions on just mounted hdd it require root mount point. And I have to
set root mount point on existing partition.
--
View this message in context:
http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/9-0-BETA1-installer-glithcies-i386-tp47
Sorry. This turned out to be an unrelated configuration problem due to my
strange zfs layout. The ATA_CAM driver is not implicated!
Thanks to all for their attention to this matter.
Alexander burchell
On Aug 12, 2011 2:39 PM, "Alexander Motin" wrote:
> On 12.08.2011 22:33, Alexander Burchell wr
2011/8/21 Lev Serebryakov :
> Hello, Nathan.
> You wrote 21 августа 2011 г., 20:53:22:
>
>> GPT is bootable on all x86 systems, with either EFI or BIOS, and is now
> Ok, I was not sure here.
The Wikipedia article on GUID Partition Table states that Windows only supports
GPT boot when the system
On 08/10/11 18:17, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
Hi,
Love the new installer, but I do have a very small criticism of the
guided partitioning screen: it's unclear at first glance which of the
available buttons ("Create", "Delete", ..., "Exit") me
on 21/08/2011 20:47 Derrick Edwards said the following:
> On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 17:21 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>> on 19/08/2011 01:07 Derrick Edwards said the following:
>>> Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
>>> cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
>>> fault virtual address = 0xbe00a45b6798
Hello, Nathan.
You wrote 21 августа 2011 г., 20:53:22:
> GPT is bootable on all x86 systems, with either EFI or BIOS, and is now
Ok, I was not sure here.
>> (5) Partition creation dialog has button "Options", but modify dialog
>> doesn't.
> This is by design. The installer can't run tunefs, n
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 17:21 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 19/08/2011 01:07 Derrick Edwards said the following:
> > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
> > cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
> > fault virtual address = 0xbe00a45b6798
>
> This address looks suspiciously like a result of bit
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 17:21 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 19/08/2011 01:07 Derrick Edwards said the following:
> > Fatal trap 12: page fault while in kernel mode
> > cpuid = 0; apic id = 00
> > fault virtual address = 0xbe00a45b6798
>
> This address looks suspiciously like a result of bit
On 08/20/11 02:22, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
Hello, Freebsd-current.
Maybe, everything is reported already, but I think, that better I'll
be second, that no-one notice this:
Manual partitioning chosen
(1) Installer offer me bunch of Partition schemes, but only MBR
and BSD have sense. Why i3
John De wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have an nfs server running 9-current. Everything works as far
> as nfs i/o operations are concerned.
>
> From another FreeBSD box, nfs locking works great to the server
> when addressed by both it's real ip address and it's aliased ip
> address.
>
> From a Linux system
Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> >> Yes, using vfs_getnewfsid() does not solve the issue.
> >>
> >> I noticed that Solaris looked up a fixed array vfssw[] exactly for
> >> the purpose. I think a table like it is a good solution for fixing
> >> fsid for each file
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 09:35:01AM +0100, Hugo Silva wrote:
>
>
> Le Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:22:31 +0100,
> Hugo Silva a ?crit :
>
> Hello,
>
> > I'm wondering. On a virtual machine (amd64 HVM+PV), it's crashing
> > every time. Not sure if this is SNAFU, as I had never used ufs
> > snapshots on fr
37 matches
Mail list logo
