/gbde
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/usr/include/machine/fiq.h
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/usr/lib/include/machine/fiq.h
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/usr/share/man/man4/CAM.4.gz
That was an armv7 context.
For comparison/contrast, aarch64 had:
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA76-poud/rescue/gbde
/usr
On Jul 27, 2024, at 16:07, Mark Millard wrote:
> The following old files were in the historically incrementally
> updated directory tree but not in the installation to an empty
> directory tree (checked via diff -rq):
>
> /usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/rescue/gbde
> /usr/obj
The following old files were in the historically incrementally
updated directory tree but not in the installation to an empty
directory tree (checked via diff -rq):
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/rescue/gbde
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7-poud/usr/include/machine/fiq.h
/usr/obj/DESTDIRs/main-CA7
It has served it's purpose, and GELI is better maintained.
I have added a message+sleep to gbde(8) in -current.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:24:00 -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> Lyndon Nerenberg wrote this message on Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 19:06 -0700:
> > On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:06 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> >
> > > The thing I like most about encryption is that when I RMA a bad
> > > drive, I don't have
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote this message on Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 19:06 -0700:
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:06 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>
> > The thing I like most about encryption is that when I RMA a bad
> > drive, I don't have to worry about my data leaking if I am unable
> > to overwrite all the dat
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:06 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
>> The thing I like most about encryption is that when I RMA a bad
>> drive, I don't have to worry about my data leaking if I am unable
>> to overwrite all the data...
> You are optimistic if you believe that. We ($W
On Oct 24, 2015, at 12:06 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> The thing I like most about encryption is that when I RMA a bad
> drive, I don't have to worry about my data leaking if I am unable
> to overwrite all the data...
You are optimistic if you believe that. We ($WORK) factor the cost of
DOA/
Julian H. Stacey wrote this message on Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 17:58 +0200:
> > >If you want a secure filesystem I think that at this particular time
> > >it would be entirely reasonable to use both gbde and geli stacked on
> > >top of each other[...]
>
> I've
For what's worth we are using modded GBDE in one of the products to provide
copy protection for the firmware and encryption of user's data. GELI is
nice, but it's way much more end-user oriented. Also GBDE code is very
stable, which may look bad from somebody using it to p
> >If you want a secure filesystem I think that at this particular time
> >it would be entirely reasonable to use both gbde and geli stacked on
> >top of each other[...]
I've often wondered if multiple encryption (CPU permitting) is sensible in
case one day some method
In message <20151023192353.ga95...@cons.org>, Martin Cracauer writes:
>If you want a secure filesystem I think that at this particular time
>it would be entirely reasonable to use both gbde and geli stacked on
>top of each other[...]
Nobody is going to break through t
If I can open the soapbox for a moment.
If you want a secure filesystem I think that at this particular time
it would be entirely reasonable to use both gbde and geli stacked on
top of each other, assuming you have CPU/battery to spare. (there
should be enough cores but the battery might be
here.
3. Is there a gain/loss for removing gbde?
Yes, you alienate a lot of users who very often are not even in a
position to tell you they run FreeBSD.
Think human rights activists for instance.
Couldn't they use a fake email address and Tor to communicate
anonymously? I'd be su
>From p...@phk.freebsd.dk Tue Oct 20 10:08:55 2015
>
>>Am I correct that the papers are from 2003 and 2004
>>respectively. Has much changed in gbde since then?
>
>Nope.
One thing that puzzled me about the way gbde
is integrated with the FreeBSD boot sequence is
that i
In message <201510200841.t9k8fngy005...@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton
Shterenlikht writes:
>Am I correct that the papers are from 2003 and 2004
>respectively. Has much changed in gbde since then?
Nope.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...
>> In message <201510200645.t9k6jaam004...@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton
>> Shterenlikht writes:
>>>> GBDE is for when the user is in danger.
>>>
>>> In danger of what?
>>> Please elaborate.
>>
>> Read the paper:
>>
In message <5625d422.4040...@fizk.net>, Yonas Yanfa writes:
>> Think human rights activists for instance.
>
>Couldn't they use a fake email address and Tor to communicate
>anonymously? I'd be surprised if they aren't already.
If you think being a human rights activist is that simple, yo
> On Oct 20, 2015, at 00:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>
> In message <201510200645.t9k6jaam004...@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton
> Shterenlikht writes:
>>> GBDE is for when the user is in danger.
>>
>> In danger of what?
>> Please
>GBDE is for when the user is in danger.
In danger of what?
Please elaborate.
>From the handbook, it is not clear at all
that the two encryption methods are designed
to defend against different threats.
Maybe I'm using the wrong one...
Thank
In message <201510200645.t9k6jaam004...@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk>, Anton
Shterenlikht writes:
>>GBDE is for when the user is in danger.
>
>In danger of what?
>Please elaborate.
Read the paper:
http://phk.freebsd.dk/pubs/bsdcon-03.gbde.paper.pdf
Or use the
In message
, NGie
Cooper writes:
>1. Why are there 2 competing technologies?
They are not competing, they support two very different threat models.
>3. Is there a gain/loss for removing gbde?
Yes, you alienate a lot of users who very often are not even in a
position to tell yo
In message <20151019234855.4ed82...@gumby.homeunix.com>, RW writes:
>I certainly wouldn't like to see gbde removed but I think it is
>unfortunate that it's given slightly greater prominence in the handbook
>than geli. geli is the right choice for most people.
es the crypto(9)
framework. This doesn't mean much on it's own, but if you have a machine
with AES-NI instructions or an accelerator card that supports the cipher
mode used, then you can get faster performance of hardware off load,
while gbde uses the software only routines which are slow.
Hi Martin, thanks, that raises some interesting points. After reading PHK's
paper on GBDE, I can see enough differences between GDBE and GELI that
warrant keeping GDBE.
[ At this point for me, this part is theoretical, but it's still
interesting ] I've seen the concerned made a fe
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Martin Cracauer wrote:
> Yonas Yanfa wrote on Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:36:19AM -0400:
>>
>> Is there any objection to removing gbde? How many people use gbde? When
>> have you used gbde over geli, and why?
>
> You would exclude all c
Yonas Yanfa wrote on Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:36:19AM -0400:
>
> Is there any objection to removing gbde? How many people use gbde? When
> have you used gbde over geli, and why?
You would exclude all current users from accessing their existing
filesystems or whatever they put into t
h
> technique and a clear preparation of each ones advantages over the
> other.
IIRC gbde allows the passphrase to be verified even after the
master-keys have been deleted. The point is to demonstrate that the
passphrase is not being withheld, and the data unrecoverable.
AFAIK that's th
> >
> > So, one thing that the docs talk about is that geli uses the crypto(9)
> > framework. This doesn't mean much on it's own, but if you have a machine
> > with AES-NI instructions or an accelerator card that supports the cipher
> > mode used, then you can get f
Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:52:05AM -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote:
>
> > Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> >
> > > I use gbde.
> > > Can switch to geli, if required,
> > > but please provide detailed instructions
> >
x27;t mean much on it's own, but if you have a machine
> with AES-NI instructions or an accelerator card that supports the cipher
> mode used, then you can get faster performance of hardware off load,
> while gbde uses the software only routines which are slow..
John-Mark, thanks for listi
Hi, Reference:
> From: John-Mark Gurney
> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:50:08 -0700
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> So, one thing that the docs talk about is that geli uses the crypto(9)
Interesting.
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/disks-encrypting.html
Could ben
that supports the cipher
mode used, then you can get faster performance of hardware off load,
while gbde uses the software only routines which are slow..
I have put work into making AES-XTS very fast on AES-NI capable
machines... On my test machine, I get about 1GB/sec on gzero... This
is close to
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 01:52:05AM -0700, Perry Hutchison wrote:
> Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
>
> > I use gbde.
> > Can switch to geli, if required,
> > but please provide detailed instructions
> > for switching before removing gbde.
>
> Such instructions
Anton Shterenlikht wrote:
> I use gbde.
> Can switch to geli, if required,
> but please provide detailed instructions
> for switching before removing gbde.
Such instructions would presumably be included in the UPDATING
entry.
An additional consideration: If there is no conv
I use gbde.
Can switch to geli, if required,
but please provide detailed instructions
for switching before removing gbde.
Anton
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 01:29:36 +0200
"Julian H. Stacey" wrote:
>
> Yonas Yanfa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely
> > flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover,
&g
Yonas Yanfa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely
> flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover,
> geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums.
& global community uses DOS-FS
In message <5623846b.6000...@freebsd.org>, Allan Jude writes:
>While I think it isn't a bad idea to put GELI first in the handbook, I
>don't see any reason to remove gdbe.
I don't see any reason to remove gbde, and would consider any such
suggestion somewha
On 2015-10-18 06:36, Yonas Yanfa wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely
> flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover,
> geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums.
>
> gbde&
Hi,
It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely
flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover,
geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums.
gbde's man page explicitly says that gbde is experimental and should be
e should just be fixed.
>
>Should the '-n -1' just be removed? I.e., is 'gbde destroy' sufficient to
>destroy all copies of the key?
(Sorry about previous empty reply)
Yes, the -n isn't needed because it doesn't operate on any specific key
but all of them.
e should just be fixed.
>
>Should the '-n -1' just be removed? I.e., is 'gbde destroy' sufficient to
>destroy all copies of the key?
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BS
> In message <20140820215522.ga92...@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org>,
> >> "Michae
> >> l W. Lucas" writes:
> >> >Playing with GBDE for my FreeBSD disk book, on:
> >> >
> >> ># uname -a
> >> >FreeBSD storm 11.0-CURRENT Fre
In message <2945485.zemf81r...@ralph.baldwin.cx>, John Baldwin writes:
>On Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:16:42 AM Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> In message <20140820215522.ga92...@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org>,
>> "Michae
>> l W.
On Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:16:42 AM Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> In message <20140820215522.ga92...@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org>,
> "Michae
> l W. Lucas" writes:
> >Playing with GBDE for my FreeBSD disk book, on:
> >
> ># uname
In message <20140820215522.ga92...@bewilderbeast.blackhelicopters.org>, "Michae
l W. Lucas" writes:
>Playing with GBDE for my FreeBSD disk book, on:
>
># uname -a
>FreeBSD storm 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #6 r269010: Wed Jul 23
>11:13:17 EDT 2014
Hi,
Playing with GBDE for my FreeBSD disk book, on:
# uname -a
FreeBSD storm 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #6 r269010: Wed Jul 23 11:13:17
EDT 2014 mwlucas@storm:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
According to the man page, I should be able to destroy all copies of
the key with gbde
On 27 Jun 2013, at 09:06, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Hiroki Sato wrote
> in <20130623.035356.644417021040610458@allbsd.org>:
>
> hr> Hi,
> hr>
> hr> I created a patchset to add support of automatic generation of
> hr> vnode-backed md(4) devices and gbd
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20130623.035356.644417021040610458@allbsd.org>:
hr> Hi,
hr>
hr> I created a patchset to add support of automatic generation of
hr> vnode-backed md(4) devices and gbde/geli geom providers to swapon(8)
hr> via /etc/fstab. We already have equiva
b like this:
md noneswapsw,file=/swap.bin 0 0
- Add GBDE/GELI encrypted swap space specification support, which
rc.d/encswap supported. The /etc/fstab lines are like the following:
/dev/ada1p1.bde noneswapsw 0 0
/dev/ada1p2.eli none
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I created a patchset to add support of automatic generation of
> vnode-backed md(4) devices and gbde/geli geom providers to swapon(8)
> via /etc/fstab. We already have equivalent functionality by using
> r
Hi,
I created a patchset to add support of automatic generation of
vnode-backed md(4) devices and gbde/geli geom providers to swapon(8)
via /etc/fstab. We already have equivalent functionality by using
rc.d scripts. This simplifies rc.d scripts and fixes a race between
mdconfig/gbde/geli
Donald Creel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> écrivait (wrote) :
> This has been reproducible for the last few weeks. System will crash if
> I am strictly from ttyv(n) or using KDE3.x and drag and drop.
I have no crashes but i see locks of gbde file systems (no more
activity, system idle 100%,
Robert Watson, 28.10.03, 03:26h CET:
[...slow gbde encrypted ZIP disk...]
> How do things look performance-wise if you do a raw sector read comparison
> with dd at various blocksizes? My recollection is that our msdos code
Here are a few numbers (for reading - the ones for writing don&#x
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Stefan Walter wrote:
> is there a way to speed up writing to a gbde encrypted ZIP disk?
> Copying 37 MB of data to an encrypted disk (in a SCSI drive) that has
> been initialized with "newfs -O 2 -U /dev/da1a.bde" takes ~180 seconds,
> which is ~200
commands make it to the display, passwords are in cleartext if
I enter them at the login prompt.
I have tried near the beginning of the event to kill gbde related
processes from the second ttyv(n), which does seem to extend the time
before the system has to be powered.
However, if I just copy a bunch of
Hi,
is there a way to speed up writing to a gbde encrypted ZIP disk?
Copying 37 MB of data to an encrypted disk (in a SCSI drive) that has
been initialized with "newfs -O 2 -U /dev/da1a.bde" takes ~180 seconds,
which is ~200KB/s. Copying the same amount of data to the disk without
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erwin Lansing writes:
>> Ok, and stupid question time: You do have GBDE in your kernel ?
>>=20
>> (Or to ask another way, is GBDE working on any other device (try a
>> md(4) device for instance)
>>=20
>Yup, that's w
quoted-printable
> >
> >On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:07:34PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >>=20
> >> Can you check with diskinfo that the partition has the right size ?
> >>=20
>
> Ok, and stupid question time: You do have GBDE in your kernel ?
>
>>=20
>> Can you check with diskinfo that the partition has the right size ?
>>=20
Ok, and stupid question time: You do have GBDE in your kernel ?
(Or to ask another way, is GBDE working on any other device (try a
md(4) device for instance)
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zi
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:07:34PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Can you check with diskinfo that the partition has the right size ?
>
grizzly# diskinfo -v /dev/ad0s2g
/dev/ad0s2g
512 # sectorsize
55658270720 # mediasize in bytes
108707560 # med
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erwin Lansing writes:
>For some reason, GBDE does not want to initialize the g partition om a
>disk. Am I overlooking something or is this an undocumented feature?
>
>grizzly# ls -l /dev/ad0s2g
>crw-r- 1 root operator4, 19 Oct
Howdy,
For some reason, GBDE does not want to initialize the g partition om a
disk. Am I overlooking something or is this an undocumented feature?
grizzly# ls -l /dev/ad0s2g
crw-r- 1 root operator4, 19 Oct 22 09:30 /dev/ad0s2g
grizzly# gbde init /dev/ad0s2g -i -L /etc/gbde/ad0s1g
gbde
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Stockdale
writes:
>I upgraded source on the current branch a few days ago and havn't been
>able to get GBDE to work nicely since. I'm running two separate GBDE
>devices, one 8MB memory disk, and one 1.2TB hardware raid 5 array,
&g
I upgraded source on the current branch a few days ago and havn't been
able to get GBDE to work nicely since. I'm running two separate GBDE
devices, one 8MB memory disk, and one 1.2TB hardware raid 5 array,
neither of which can I now get to mount.
When I initialize a new disk on s
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thorsten Schroeder writes:
>Hi,
>
>i updated my -current box yesterday from cvs to FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #6: Sun
>Oct 19 17:40:10 CEST 2003.
>
>Now i'm not able to attach gbde encrypted filesystems - regardless if it's a
>d
Thorsten Schroeder wrote:
Hi,
i updated my -current box yesterday from cvs to FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #6: Sun
Oct 19 17:40:10 CEST 2003.
Now i'm not able to attach gbde encrypted filesystems - regardless if it's a
disk image created with mdconfig, or a partition on harddisk.
[...]
u
Hi,
i updated my -current box yesterday from cvs to FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT #6: Sun
Oct 19 17:40:10 CEST 2003.
Now i'm not able to attach gbde encrypted filesystems - regardless if it's a
disk image created with mdconfig, or a partition on harddisk.
gdbe attach works without any error me
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Geom and Gbde slides
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:19:52 +0200
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As promised, but somewhat delayed, I have uploaded my slides from
BSDcon03 to my web-server:
http://phk.fre
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Stockdale
writes:
>Hopefully PHK has a chance to look this one over, but if anyone else
>has any thoughts I'll take any opinions I can get. ;)
I have a number of operations I plan to add to the gbde tool, but
some of them has be a bit wo
Hopefully PHK has a chance to look this one over, but if anyone else
has any thoughts I'll take any opinions I can get. ;)
I was looking over the 5.2 TODO and got curious as to the changes
intended for GBDE to allow integration into the fstab / boot-time mount
procedure. Unfortunately I h
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek writ
es:
>+> One way or another: It is _not_ a GBDE problem.
>
>Hey, Poul! I'm not trying to show that gbde(4) is a buggy software,
>I'm not trying to destroy you work, your image or FreeBSD, really.
>
>I
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 08:38:02PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
+> >+> What you have found has nothing to do with GBDE, I think it is the
+> >+> usual "vnode backed md(4)" deadlock.
+> >
+> >Hmm? So you're trying to tell that this is somehow normal b
-s 512M -u 1
>+>=20
>+> What you have found has nothing to do with GBDE, I think it is the
>+> usual "vnode backed md(4)" deadlock.
>
>Hmm? So you're trying to tell that this is somehow normal behaviour?
We've had problems like this before with vnode backe
-a -t vnode -f /mnt/test.file -s 512M -u 1
+>
+> What you have found has nothing to do with GBDE, I think it is the
+> usual "vnode backed md(4)" deadlock.
Hmm? So you're trying to tell that this is somehow normal behaviour?
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek [E
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek writ
es:
# touch /mnt/test.file
You are probably missing:
dd if=/dev/null of=/mnt/test.file bs=1m count=512
# mdconfig -a -t vnode -f /mnt/test.file -s 512M -u 1
What you have found has nothing to do wit
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek writ
es:
> # touch /mnt/test.file
You are probably missing:
dd if=/dev/null of=/mnt/test.file bs=1m count=512
> # mdconfig -a -t vnode -f /mnt/test.file -s 512M -u 1
What you have found has nothing to do
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek writ
es:
>
>On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:57:07PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
>+> I've found deadlock in gbde(4) and/or md(4).
>
>Yes, it is gbde fault:
I don't know what you have found, but I can guaran
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 03:57:07PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> I've found deadlock in gbde(4) and/or md(4).
Yes, it is gbde fault:
db> show lockedvnods
[...]
0xc3332920: tag ufs, type VREG, usecount 1, writecount 0, refcount 21, flags
(VV_OBJBUF), lock type
ufs: EXCL (
Hello.
I've found deadlock in gbde(4) and/or md(4).
Here is a complete procedure hot to repeat it:
# touch /mnt/test.file
# mdconfig -a -t vnode -f /mnt/test.file -s 512M -u 1
# mkdir /etc/gbde
# gbde init /dev/md1 -L /etc/gbde/md1
Enter new passp
The machine with the tape drive has no OS installed on it yet. Anyway, I
tried it with vnode. "dump" runs without any problem. But, "restore"
stops after a few minutes. I did the following:
% mdconfig -a -t vnode -f img0 -u md0
% gbde init /dev/md0 -i -L lock
I change the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christophe Zwecker writes:
>Hi
>
>I wonder if I can do a background check after mounting an crypted part
>or does the check have to be b4 ?
That should just work, a filesystem on GBDE is no different than any
other filesystem.
--
Poul-Henning
Hi
I wonder if I can do a background check after mounting an crypted part
or does the check have to be b4 ?
best regards,
Christophe
--
Christophe Zwecker mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hamburg, Germanyfon: +49 179 3994867
http://www.zwecker.de
"Who is Gener
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christophe Zwecker writes:
>Hi,
>
>I was trying to dump my crypted partition (mounted) and got the following:
>
>DUMP: Dumping /dev/twed0s1h.bde to /dev/nsa0
>DUMP: Cannot find file system superblock
>DUMP: The ENTIRE dump is aborted.
>
>how can I back it up ?
That
Hi,
I was trying to dump my crypted partition (mounted) and got the following:
DUMP: Dumping /dev/twed0s1h.bde to /dev/nsa0
DUMP: Cannot find file system superblock
DUMP: The ENTIRE dump is aborted.
how can I back it up ?
thx
Christophe
--
Christophe Zwecker mail: [EMAIL PR
Hey Everyone,
I've been MIA with regards to the current list lately, but was checking
the backlog for gbde stuff and came across this thread. Anyway, I've
been running gbde (thanks to Poul for helping me out along the way) on a
SMP (2x2.0ghz Xeon) box with a 3ware RAID 5 (8 drive ATA
Personally I think it would make more sense for gdbe init to pull the
sectorsize from the fs for the user. But, I'm not volunteering to write
the code. :)
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
htt
fer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Poul gave me the following tip on this list in a mail on Tue, 29 Apr 2003:
> > >>
> > >> "Remember to set the sectorsize in gbde (gbde init -i) to the fragment
> > >> size of your filesystem (typically 2048 for
29 Apr 2003:
> >>
> >> "Remember to set the sectorsize in gbde (gbde init -i) to the fragment
> >> size of your filesystem (typically 2048 for ufs), this is critical
> >> for performance."
> >>
> >
> >If this is so important, why
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Guido van Rooij writes:
>On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Heiko Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> Poul gave me the following tip on this list in a mail on Tue, 29 Apr 2003:
>>
>> "Remember to set the sectorsize in gbde (gbde in
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 02:25:08PM +0200, Heiko Schaefer wrote:
>
> Poul gave me the following tip on this list in a mail on Tue, 29 Apr 2003:
>
> "Remember to set the sectorsize in gbde (gbde init -i) to the fragment
> size of your filesystem (typically 2048 for ufs), th
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 05:39:01PM -0800, Lucky Green wrote:
> I am writing a section for the Handbook on how to use gbde. Currently,
> using gbde is a rather manual process. Each time a host reboots, the
> admin needs to attach the gbde device(s), enter any required
> passphrases, m
I am writing a section for the Handbook on how to use gbde. Currently,
using gbde is a rather manual process. Each time a host reboots, the
admin needs to attach the gbde device(s), enter any required
passphrases, manually fsck the partition, and mount it.
I suspect some subscribers to this
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 08:15:56PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I keep ketting errors when trying to make my root filesystem encrypted:
I hope you have /boot on a different unencrypted filesystem.
-gordon
msg52350/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] write
s:
>I keep ketting errors when trying to make my root filesystem encrypted:
>
>bash-2.05b# gbde init /dev/ad0s2a
>gbde: /dev/ad0s2a: No such file or directory
>bash-2.05b#
If you have ad0s2a mounted as a filesystem, do
I keep ketting errors when trying to make my root filesystem encrypted:
bash-2.05b# gbde init /dev/ad0s2a
gbde: /dev/ad0s2a: No such file or directory
bash-2.05b#
bash-2.05b# ls /dev/ad0*
/dev/ad0/dev/ad0s2 /dev/ad0s2b /dev/ad0s2d /dev/ad0s2f
/dev/ad0s1 /dev/ad0s2a
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darryl Okahata writes
:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Say, do you actually have the GEOM_BDE option in your kernel ?
>
> Sigh, no. I missed it in gbde(4).
>
> You might want to further idiot-proof gbde(8) with code like:
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Say, do you actually have the GEOM_BDE option in your kernel ?
Sigh, no. I missed it in gbde(4).
You might want to further idiot-proof gbde(8) with code like:
err(1, "ioctl(GEOMCONFIGGEOM) (is \"options GEOM_BDE\" in the kernel?)"
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Darryl Okahata writes
:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Can you please try this:
>>
>> mdconfig -a -t malloc -s 4m -u 75
>> gbde init /dev/md75
>> gbde attach md75
>
> Nope, exact same e
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
