Re: dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long

2011-12-31 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Sun, 11 Sep 2011 10:54:17 +0200
schrieb Martin Sugioarto

 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
 A patch has been applied to head.
 It will be MFC'ed after appropriate burnin time.

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.


Description: PGP signature

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

2011-12-23 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:18:03 +0200
schrieb Daniel Kalchev

 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
 - 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

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
 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.


Description: PGP signature

Re: Benchmark (Phoronix): FreeBSD 9.0-RC2 vs. Oracle Linux 6.1 Server

2011-12-22 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:17:00 +0100
schrieb O. Hartmann

 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.


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.


Description: PGP signature

Re: upgrade issue 8.x to 9.0-RC2: not found

2011-11-28 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:49:50 -0800

 Hello everyone,


(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 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

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.

Description: PGP signature

Re: /usr/home vs /home

2011-11-21 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:15:36 -1000
schrieb David Cornejo

 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

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.


Description: PGP signature

Question about: /etc/periodic/security/800.loginfail

2011-10-23 Thread Martin Sugioarto


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 sshd[21547]: error: PAM:
authentication error for root from

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 sshd[77983]: pam_ldap: error
trying to bind as user uid=root,ou=People,dc=domain (Invalid

So the question is if this egrep pipe sufficient and if it tells you
precisely enough what's going on. Any opinions on this?


Description: PGP signature

Re: Not setting TERM explicitly wraps commands at 80 columns with nested shells in xterms using sh + bash?

2011-10-21 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 23:40:05 -0700
schrieb Garrett Cooper

 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


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?


Description: PGP signature

Re: x.0 RELASE isn't for production.

2011-10-15 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:55:28 +0400
schrieb Pavel Timofeev

 That's what most people think.


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

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.


Description: PGP signature

Re: dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long

2011-09-12 Thread Martin Sugioarto

Hi all,

I added this to the PR DB, because it was requested:

Cc to freebsd-geom.

Original report on freebsd-current:

Martin Sugioarto

Description: PGP signature

dump cannot do incremental backups when device name is too long

2011-09-11 Thread Martin Sugioarto

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.


--- /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);

Description: PGP signature

Please explain syslog entry about gmirror

2011-09-09 Thread Martin Sugioarto


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)


Description: PGP signature


2011-08-31 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:34:54 -0400
schrieb Chris Brennan

 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

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.

___ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: Trying to install current from a memory stick and then a DVD and got a new and strange installer.

2011-07-25 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:08:02 -0500
schrieb Nathan Whitehorn

 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.


yes. And I want to thank you (and everyone) for this change in

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.


Description: PGP signature

Re: HEADS UP: ZFSv28 is in!

2011-02-28 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Sun, 27 Feb 2011 21:29:57 +0100
schrieb Pawel Jakub Dawidek

 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

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

Description: PGP signature

Re: why panic(9) ?

2011-01-12 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:41:42 +0100
schrieb Lars Engels

 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,

 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.



Description: PGP signature

Re: why panic(9) ?

2011-01-11 Thread Martin Sugioarto
Am Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:11:13 +0100
schrieb David DEMELIER

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

 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

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.


Description: PGP signature