On 12/12/18 01:58, Otto Moerbeek wrote: > 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 >
Fixed a machine that had only a 500mb root partition, but I managed to put a 32k block format on. No idea how I did it, but it fixed it! Nick.
