Re: 5.1-R: rcNG - 'mountall' missing?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:14:08 +1000 Johny Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure what the best approach would be, so I'd like some feedback on this. Would it be acceptable to introduce another dummy target (like FILESYSTEMS)? From a purely FreeBSD perspective I would probably find this the cleanest, but I know we need to play nice with NetBSD too (do they have anything like md or vn?) so that might stuff things up. On FreeBSD all filesystems will be mounted by the time mountcritremote is done. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]| FreeBSD - The Power To Serve ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5.1-R: rcNG - 'mountall' missing?
Hi all, I just upgraded a couple of my systems to 5.1-REL and have been exploring the new stuff ever since. First off, I'd like to extend a big thanks to the rcNG people - well done, this is so much nicer/better/flexible than the old system! :) Then on to the question: there appears to be a number of scripts missing from /etc/rc.d, as is very noticeable when running rcorder(8) on them. Particularly the 'mountall' script is depended on by a number of other scripts. I had a quick look at what 'mountall' looks like on a NetBSD box I have access to, and it basically just issues a (u)mount -a. Is there a good reason why we don't have mountall? Are all avenues really covered by the mountcrit scripts? There is of course a specific reason why I'm interested in mountall, but more about that later... Cheers, /Johny ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.1-R: rcNG - 'mountall' missing?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 12:16:53 +1000 Johny Mattsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a good reason why we don't have mountall? Are all avenues really covered by the mountcrit scripts? This stems from the fact that the way we handle filesystems is different from the way NetBSD handles it. For our purposes, we need one pass to mount local filesystems and a second one to mount remote ones. IIRC NetBSD requires that users specify their file systems in rc.conf. This might be useful to have on FreeBSD, as long as it's strictly optional, but I don't have the time or interest to work on it. Cheers. -- Mike Makonnen | GPG-KEY: http://www.identd.net/~mtm/mtm.asc [EMAIL PROTECTED] | D228 1A6F C64E 120A A1C9 A3AA DAE1 E2AF DBCC 68B9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]| FreeBSD - The Power To Serve ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 5.1-R: rcNG - 'mountall' missing?
Mike Makonnen wrote: This stems from the fact that the way we handle filesystems is different from the way NetBSD handles it. For our purposes, we need one pass to mount local filesystems and a second one to mount remote ones. Ah, okay. I haven't actually been root on a NetBSD box, so I'm not too familiar with that side of the fence I'm afraid. Now, to (maybe) throw a spanner in the works, I'm currently working on a couple of scripts to allow the handling of md(4) based filesystems at boot time. Personally I have a need for vnode type file systems, but I'm making it so that malloc/swap filesystems are also handled (e.g. for /tmp). The issue that arises from this support is that I can't safely have the md devices attach before all the file systems are mounted since I don't know on which fs any vnode backing files reside on (and I don't want to have to do a two-pass; one for malloc/swap and one for vnode). It could potentially be a case where you want/need to attach to a file that's on a remote system (via nfs or even smb perhaps). From my scripts' point of view this isn't too bad, as I can just depend on 'mountall' (or so I think at least), but in doing so I'm perverting the meaning of 'mountall', as not all filesystems will be mounted by then. I'm not sure what the best approach would be, so I'd like some feedback on this. Would it be acceptable to introduce another dummy target (like FILESYSTEMS)? From a purely FreeBSD perspective I would probably find this the cleanest, but I know we need to play nice with NetBSD too (do they have anything like md or vn?) so that might stuff things up. I'm really open to suggestions here, and if there isn't any interest in getting md boot-time support into the baseline I'm happy to keep it as a set of local patches, but I suspected that if I write it in such a way that a swap backed /tmp is possible to achieve with a simple rc.conf tweak and a supporting file, then that might be something a number of people would be interested in. I'll post a patch set in a day or two when I've tuned the scripts a bit more (hopefully in response to feedback). IIRC NetBSD requires that users specify their file systems in rc.conf. This might be useful to have on FreeBSD, as long as it's strictly optional, but I don't have the time or interest to work on it. Interesting, but nothing I'd find useful either at the moment, so I'll pass on that task :) Cheers, /Johny ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
