On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 09:42:29AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 02:22:01PM -0500, Adam Stouffer wrote:
>
> > On 11/17/2018 10:58 AM, Peter Hessler wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, the fix is "don't use a single root partition" and instead
> > > "partition your damn disk as intended".
> > >
> > >
> >
> > So what is the maximum root partition size or don't you know because this is
> > an unintended bug?
> >
> > I've been an OpenBSD user for nearly 20 years now. I started with release
> > 2.3 running on a Sparc and migrated to Alpha for many years and settled on
> > amd64 currently. It seems like the time has come to part ways with an
> > operating system that cannot handle a 160Gb root partition. Soon 16 Terabyte
> > drives are going to be sold and you're telling me that using 1% of that
> > space for / will result in an system unable to boot?
> >
> > We are no longer running on 5Mb RL01 disk packs. Time to get with the
> > decade.
> >
>
> Please enlighten us why developers spending time on this would be a
> good thing, in other words, why would you *want* a 160G root
> partition?
>
> -Otto
>
So I spend/wasted some time on this. There is a diff on tech@ and in
snapshots that enables booting on amd64 and i386 with very big root
filesystems. Note that on amd64 and i386 the bootloader uses bios
calls to load the kernel. These bios calls might have restrictions.
The advise on partitioning your disk still stands.
-Otto
