Re: dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long
Am Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:54:17 +0200 schrieb Martin Sugioarto mar...@sugioarto.com: Synopsis: [patch] dump(8) cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long State-Changed-From-To: open-patched State-Changed-By: mckusick State-Changed-When: Fri Oct 21 22:49:35 UTC 2011 State-Changed-Why: A patch has been applied to head. It will be MFC'ed after appropriate burnin time. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=160678 Hi all, can someone add this patch (not my version, but the one Mr McKusick posted) to the future release branch? I tested it for a long time now and didn't have any problems. Thank you. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200 schrieb Daniel Kalchev dan...@digsys.bg: The -RELEASE things is just a freeze (or, let's say tested freeze) of the corresponding branch at some time. It is the code available and tested at that time. Hi Daniel, obviously performance is not a quality aspect, only stability. FreeBSD is not a distribution. It also compiles with the latest compiler - LLVM. :) I thought that the D in FreeBSD stands for distribution. Yes, it's ok that it compiles with LLVM. Does it also run faster in benchmarks? I find it amusing, that people want everything compiled with GCC 4.7, which is still very much developing, therefore highly unstable and (probably) full of bugs. When you don't use the software don't complain that it is buggy, because you won't find the bugs. You cannot always tell the others to make everything perfect. I don't want to have everything compiled on $COMPILER. I want that there is a reasonable quality. And for me quality is not only stability, but also speed. Many suggested that the Linux binaries be run via the FreeBSD Linux emulation. Unchanged. There is one problem here though, the emulation is still 32 bit. I'm not talking about emulation. I don't use FreeBSD to run emulated binaries. I (any many people) want efficient servers and eventually desktops. You should not expect people to tune the system for speed, when it's clear that default setting does not make any sense. People will use default settings, because they trust developers that they thought about balanced stability, security and performance. FreeBSD has safe default. This is what I am talking about. Don't complain that the benchmark does not show efficience. No one is interested in tuning FreeBSD just for a benchmark application. It is supposed to work out of the box on whatever hardware you put it. As much as it has drives for that hardware, of course. Once you have working installation, you may tweak it all the way you wish. But if you don't tweak, you get a fair result in a benchmark. This is what you will see as a user of the system. These are the default settings, that means developers chose them as the BEST choice for the system. If your installation is pre-optimized, chances are it will crash all the time on you and there will be no easy way for you to fix, short of installing another distribution. Sorry, no. If optimization makes bugs appear, there are bugs in the code (somewhere). And you will never find them when you hide them like this. You will also never see many advances in performance. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100 schrieb O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de: Benchmarks also could lead developers to look into more details of the weak points of their OS, if they're open for that. Therefore, benchmarks are very useful. But not if any real fault of the OS is excused by a faulty becnhmarking. Hi, it is important for the project to be known and I think that the benchmarks made by Phoronix help FreeBSD to gain popularity, even they look bad sometimes. Furthermore, to make a benchmark is a lot of work and the results are useful, because at the end someone will look at it and will try to improve the results. Thank you for investing your time. I remember that I've made some tests with different platforms i386 vs amd64 with simple tools like openssl speed some time ago and got some bad results for amd64 that no one cared to explain. These bad results weren't reflected on Linux that I tested later for comparison. And most people have a weird attitude to think that the tester measures wrong instead of taking a look at it. They forget that as a FreeBSD user you would rather see FreeBSD win over Linux. I've seen that Phoronix made various benchmarks about FreeBSD compared to Linux and I can tell you that _subjectively_ the benchmarks reflect what I always thought about FreeBSD. I simply _know_ that FreeBSD is worse in concurrency behavior, I know that it has I/O trouble, I know that it is mostly faster emulating 3D games than Linux runs them natively. I knew this already _before_ you published the benchmark about the 3D performance. I cannot see any evil intentions in these benchmarks. All I can see is the wrong attitude _here_. If anyone thinks that Phoronix makes bad benchmarks, they should do these benchmarks by themselves and publish the results. As long as no one tries, Phoronix stays the best reference for me and for everyone else. And don't forget, benchmarks can never be objective enough and someone will always be mad about the results. Especially, when you present them a versus battle. A further thing is that I cannot understand the people here sometimes. I would like that the -RELEASE versions of FreeBSD perform well without any further optimizations. When the distribution does not compile with the latest compiler it's simply a bug. Why should one try to penalize the other distribution and downgrade their binaries? When FreeBSD has a bad default setup, there must be a reason for that. Tell me this reason and show me that it's justified in form of some other benchmark. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: upgrade issue 8.x to 9.0-RC2: libz.so.5 not found
Am Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:49:50 -0800 schrieb al...@stokes.ca: Hello everyone, Hi, (I'll shorten this a bit, because I don't have opinions on everything you wrote) I'm either not brave enough or insane enough to put my FreeBSD system volume onto the ZFS mirror, as much as that seems kind of cool. Plain old UFS on a separate drive for me. Have others had success with ZFS system volumes? Since 8.2 I can confirm that ZFS was stable enough for me. But I have to admit that I'm still a bit sceptical because (even it's been long time ago) once I ended up with a broken zpool that spewed panics on zpool initialization. That was a horrible experience that I won't forget that easily. However, programs such as startx and portupgrade are failing with the message libz.so.5 not found. I know I can fix this with an evil symlink, but that doesn't seem right, and what else is broken? Is there not a facility in portupgrade to scan my live dependencies and warn me of breakage? I have not encountered such a beast in my gleanings to date. There is a little helper in port sysutils/bsdadminscripts called pkg_libchk. I use this tool very often like this: pkg_libchk -qo broken.txt And then I cat it to portmaster: portmaster -d `cat broken.txt` I don't know anymore how the portmaster step works with portupgrade, you need to figure this out by yourself. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: /usr/home vs /home
Am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:15:36 -1000 schrieb David Cornejo d...@dogwood.com: I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to / to mimic the old many partition style? Hi David, I like the idea of having /usr/home better, because if you don't want to have a separate partition for homes, you would at least have a huge partition (/usr) and won't run out of space quickly. If you create /home, you'll assign the rootfs space to users without a home partitions and rootfs is typically small. FreeBSD is totally fine with /home mountpoint. It won't work differently. I consider the installer procedure as a quick way to install FreeBSD. It is for people who want to try something. And you don't want to have all these help! my rootfs is full! support questions and explain the same thing over and over again. I think, I'm not alone when I say that I prepare the disks myself instead of using the installer. I don't even know if the new installer will be capable of installing FreeBSD like I have it installed now. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Question about: /etc/periodic/security/800.loginfail
Hi, I noticed that the daily security emails don't show failed logins properly, because the logged string does not match. This is how the lines are grepped for failed logins: n=$(catmsgs | egrep -ia ^$yesterday.*: .*(fail|invalid|bad|illegal) | tee /dev/stderr | wc -l) This is how the lines look like that I don't see: Oct 23 08:21:16 hostname.domain.com sshd[21547]: error: PAM: authentication error for root from xxx.yyy.com Is there a reason why these messages don't belong into the security mails (except that it would blow up the output)? I think that these log lines are much more useful than those POSSIBLE BREAK-IN ATTEMPT! lines or pam_ldap errors, like this one below, which don't tell the origin of the attack: Oct 22 00:07:48 hostname.domain.com sshd[77983]: pam_ldap: error trying to bind as user uid=root,ou=People,dc=domain (Invalid credentials) So the question is if this egrep pipe sufficient and if it tells you precisely enough what's going on. Any opinions on this? -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Not setting TERM explicitly wraps commands at 80 columns with nested shells in xterms using sh + bash?
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:40:05 -0700
schrieb Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com:
If I fire up an xterm without setting TERM={ansi,vt100,xterm},
etc, xterm wraps my command output to 80 columns, even if I resize the
window to something larger, issue reset (which I thought was supposed
to fix the console settings by rescanning the window size, etc). I
thought that SIGWINCH was also supposed to force a proper rescan if
the terminal application had a handler installed. This isn't new (I've
been seeing it since 8.x or 9.x, but it's just gotten to the point
where it irritates me enough that I thought I should check around
first).
Hi!
Is this related to the problem, that if you reconnect to sysutils/screen
(screen -r) while a port is in the make config phase e.g., you see
garbled output on wide monitors?
--
Martin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.
Am Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:55:28 +0400 schrieb Pavel Timofeev tim...@gmail.com: That's what most people think. Hi! I'm not thinking this. This is made up by users who only adapt slowly to changes and features. Look at the whole crowd which got furious about the new Microsoft Office. I tell you, in one year, no one will cry about it anymore. Sometimes, I feel like I am the only who is happy about good ideas, even when they change something drastically. The most people think Whoa... I have to learn again!... and then silently accept it when it is very late, because everyone else already migrated. This has nothing to do with release quality, because the efforts to make a production release of x.0 are much higher, in my opinion. So the quality is generally better, if you have enough time to make this release. For me the worst FreeBSD release ever was 5.3. Even 5.0 BETAs worked better on my hardware. I also stopped using FreeBSD at that time until 7.0 BETAs arrived. And when BETA/RC time comes users rush like mad to test it. And they find errors and bugs. Writing PR, emails and even !pathes! But the lion's share of these pathes doesn't get into the coming BETA or RC. Yes. I'm waiting for my /sbin/dump fix to get verified and committed. It's really disappointing to see the next release without a functioning backup possibility (for my configuration here). Fortunately, I don't see a fixed release date, yet. I hope the developers fix as much as possible even when we see 9.0R in late 2012. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long
Hi all, I added this to the PR DB, because it was requested: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=160678 Cc to freebsd-geom. Original report on freebsd-current: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/dump-cannot-do-incremental-backups-when-device-name-is-too-long-td4791131.html -- Martin Sugioarto signature.asc Description: PGP signature
dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long
Hi all, I've discovered a small bug in dump. When dump reads the /etc/dumpdates, at the moment the device name in the first column is restricted to 32 characters. With todays GEOM implementation, it's easy to make longer device names. My device is named: /dev/mirror/encrypted.elig.journal. And it is written to dumpdates as /dev/mirror/encrypted.elig.journ. Next time you use dump, it reads in the truncated device and internally it won't match the current dump device. The delta won't be calculated and you will get a level 0 dump again. Additionally, dump writes garbage in second and third column because of wrong formatting. It's a pretty trivial fix, because only the format for printf and sscanf causes the error (attached). Let me explain the two line patch. 1) The input is extended from 32 to 256 characters. 2) I removed the width formatting from printf. You will get a fixed column and it's hard to read. I am assuming that dump works correctly and does not modify the device name anywhere. Since I don't like this kind of parsing generally (sscanf), you are free to improve the implementation in these places. I wanted to fix it as simply as possible this time. -- Martin --- /usr/src/sbin/dump/dump.h 2008-05-24 07:20:46.0 +0200 +++ dump.h 2011-09-11 10:32:49.0 +0200 @@ -171,9 +171,9 @@ if (ddatev != NULL) \ for (ddp = ddatev[i = 0]; i nddates; ddp = ddatev[++i]) -#define DUMPOUTFMT %-32s %d %s /* for printf */ +#define DUMPOUTFMT %s %d %s /* for printf */ /* name, level, ctime(date) */ -#define DUMPINFMT %32s %d %[^\n]\n /* inverse for scanf */ +#define DUMPINFMT %256s %d %[^\n]\n /* inverse for scanf */ void sig(int signo); signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Please explain syslog entry about gmirror
Hi, I have installed BETA2 and every time I boot up the system I get the following message in syslog: GEOM_MIRRORGEOM_MIRROR: : Device mirror/boot launched (1/2). Device mirror/encrypted launched (1/2). It's a bit mangled, but it's not the problem. The problem is this (1/2). I don't like the kernel think for even a second that my mirror could be inconsistent. I have the following setup: - 2xGPT on 1TB drives - bootblock on both drives - /boot on gmirror with UFS - everything else including rootfs: * geom_mirror - geom_eli - bsdlabel What's going on in the dmesg? gmirror status gives me (correctly): NameStatus Components mirror/boot COMPLETE ada0p2 (ACTIVE) ada2p2 (ACTIVE) mirror/encrypted COMPLETE ada0p4 (ACTIVE) ada2p4 (ACTIVE) -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: http://www.freebsd.org/marketing/os-comparison.html
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:34:54 -0400 schrieb Chris Brennan xa...@xaerolimit.net: the object is to show people *WHY* FreeBSD is a sound (and valid) choice against the competition, we can't just claim we're better because we know we are, we have to provide a convincing argument that is true and honest fact. Hi Chris and all the others, I want to suggest that you shouldn't compare every single feature about FreeBSD kernel. You should not also try to lie to people about vendor support, because it's not worth mentioning, when you compare it to many Linux distributions. Don't tell people there are games and don't tell them that FreeBSD can replace Microsoft Windows, please. I like to advertise FreeBSD, but I try to do it honestly, because it will send the wrong signals. You should compare what you can *DO* better with FreeBSD. And one thing that comes instantly into my mind is the FreeBSD port collection (for my part). I've tried various Linux distributions for years and there is no such thing as FreeBSD ports in Linux world (portage comes close, but it lacks integrity sometimes). And that's why after using other OSes, I always arrived back on FreeBSD. The effort which is going into ports is amazing and (for me) the most important part of the OS. FreeBSD is one of few systems where you can have configurable up-to-date applications and this is what I need. And this is mostly the reason why I use FreeBSD. I suggest that you look at the applications of FreeBSD in the world. How people use it and why the decided to use it. I heard many people prefer FreeBSD on web servers (yeah, Netcraft also says so). But why? You tell me that FreeBSD has the best IPv6 implementation? So what?! Please tell me what you do with it, when it's so great. Jails are nice, yes! There are surely scenarios where jails are needed above every other concept. Instead of telling people about lightweight virtualisation... tell them what others do with it. Many people are too dumb to understand technical or abstract concepts. They need examples to understand the features. -- Martin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Trying to install current from a memory stick and then a DVD and got a new and strange installer.
Am Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:08:02 -0500 schrieb Nathan Whitehorn nwhiteh...@freebsd.org: It's a change from before, but a normalization with respect to most Linux distributions, since we are now using the same dialog as, e.g., Debian and Ubuntu. -Nathan Hi, yes. And I want to thank you (and everyone) for this change in libdialog. This was something I immediately liked especially while configuring ports. It saves many key presses and is perfectly logical and provides more usability. I've done a CURRENT installation, too. And it looks like you did a good job. I've liked what I've seen so far. I have one request though: Please provide more recent snapshots for more platforms. It's very difficult to find an acceptable one. It would be nice when you get some early feedback from users instead of making a typical dot-zero release that needs to be fixed and no one will be able to accept. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: HEADS UP: ZFSv28 is in!
Am Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:29:57 +0100 schrieb Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org: Hi. I just committed ZFSv28 to HEAD. New major features: - Data deduplication. - Triple parity RAIDZ (RAIDZ3). - zfs diff. - zpool split. - Snapshot holds. - zpool import -F. Allows to rewind corrupted pool to earlier transaction group. - Possibility to import pool in read-only mode. Thank you Pawel! PS. If you like my work, you help me to promote yomoli.com:) http://yomoli.com http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yomolicom/178311095544155 I would like, but you should at least tell me what it is (what will be sold there). I don't like to advertise things I don't know or even things that seem evil to me. I'll post your answer to a well-known German *BSD forum, if you want. -- Martin Sugioarto signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: why panic(9) ?
Am Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:41:42 +0100 schrieb Lars Engels lars.eng...@0x20.net: Could we please stop bashing Windows 2000? This is not bashing. I tried to explain why usually MS-Windows appears to run fine. When you understand it as bashing, I explained it wrong, sorry. We're also not talking about FreeBSD 3.x but FreeBSD-CURRENT, as this mailing list is used. I don't know if he refers to CURRENT. Maybe he just wanted to suggest a feature for FreeBSD... a FreeBSD without panics. In my experience you have to expect panics when you run CURRENT. Ack. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: why panic(9) ?
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:11:13 +0100 schrieb David DEMELIER demelier.da...@gmail.com: Hi David, I want to say something to the two statements below. In fact I like FreeBSD, and I don't expect running anything else. But I must say that I didnt see windows 2000 crashing on my every boxes I have before switching to FreeBSD. From my experience, when FreeBSD crashes, it means mostly that you have some defective hardware. Last time when I had regular panics, it was a Xeon CPU that was broken and flipped some bits in its cache when it got a bit hotter. The point is... this kind of errors would never be discovered by MS-Windows. Because it appears to crash from various reasons and you never know if you have hardware problems or a programming error. Then it's also normal that applications on MS-Windows crash here and there. It's mostly ignored because the whole system is not stable. I've had also MS-Windows 2000 long time ago. And it ran on a PC where CPU had wrong frequency multiplicator setting (all the time!). No one complained when it crashed. But when I tried to run a Linux Live-CD on it, it panic'ed very soon (mostly when starting). I suspect that MS-Windows has a few routines which ignore errors and tries to continue... which is very bad, in my opinion! It is really annoying to hear people saying MS-Windows runs and FreeBSD crashes, because it means to me that FreeBSD discovered another hardware error where MS-Windows failed. (Btw, I changed the CPU a year ago and now it works without panics. Also the wrong multiplicator was corrected and the AMD K5 CPU ran correctly.) I understand everything, corrupts kernel data must not be used. That's why panic are made to prevent any dangerous things. Yes. No one wants to lose data. I don't want to say that FreeBSD does not have programming errors. Of course, a panic might be triggered by an unknown situation in a driver. But you have to figure it out somehow, where the origins of the error are. And that's why a panic helps here. The kernel shows you the NEAREST POSSIBLE position where it detected that something went wrong. Panics are also good for diagnosis. But also, you want to get the errors in FreeBSD fixed. I learned that when I insert assertions (see assert(3)) and let my applications crash intentionally when it detects an error, paradoxically the applications have far less errors than the ones that try to run as far as possible. First thing is, as I said before, you discover the programming error NEAR the place it happened (easier to fix). Second, sometimes (after years) a developer forgets what assertions he made to restrict the usage of certain routines (special cases/values are the worst things here). It reminds the developer quickly when doing basic tests (regression tests e.g.). But as I said, I would say that FreeBSD does not panic often. Look first if it's a hardware error (and these PC-DOCTOR applications cannot really discover any problems, I can tell you for sure; also memcheckers do not find errors in memory except for some trivial cases). The best test is to try to compile world on FreeBSD. When a PC survives this, it's functioning well (very probable). Then, think if you use any exotic hardware on your system. Some drivers which are not very common, might not cover every vendor or are still not tested well, because there are not many people who use them. All in all, Panics are important. They show you problems, try to give hints what happened that lead to this situation and save you from subsequent data disasters, as others pointed out. -- Martin signature.asc Description: PGP signature
