On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
...
- Does the usage of a "dangerously dedikated disklabel" give any advantage?
Not that I can think of -- I'm not sure about maximum disk sizes for pure
BSD-label disks. It's a legitimate option, though, for people doing manual
configuration.
T
On 03/21/11 05:04, Lars Engels wrote:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
Hi,
yesterday I tested the images listed in the subject and have the following
remarks:
- At least the memstick image contains an empty fstab
- Does the usage of a "dangerously dedikated
On 03/21/11 03:25, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
Hi,
yesterday I tested the images listed in the subject and have the
following remarks:
- At least the memstick image contains an empty fstab
The memstick stuff is new and (mostly) untested, so I'll check that out.
- Does the usage of a "danger
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
> Hi,
> yesterday I tested the images listed in the subject and have the following
> remarks:
>
> - At least the memstick image contains an empty fstab
> - Does the usage of a "dangerously dedikated disklabel" give any advantag
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Lars Engels wrote:
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:04:28 +0100
From: Lars Engels
To: Michael Reifenberger
Cc: Nathan Whitehorn ,
FreeBSD-Current
Subject: Re: bsdinstall-amd64-20110313 remarks
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
Hi
Hi,
yesterday I tested the images listed in the subject and have the following
remarks:
- At least the memstick image contains an empty fstab
- Does the usage of a "dangerously dedikated disklabel" give any advantage?
- The usage of an UFS-Label for root mounting should be more flexible
- The f
