anybody close to Bristol, UK, wants to give a talk on FreeBSD and numerical analysis to UG students?
Introduction: I'll be teaching computer based modelling to year 1 mechanical engineering students. The unit is based around Matlab, which is not ideal, in my opinion, but is beyond my control. The unit is pretty low level - I have to start from loops and conditional statements, but ultimately I want them to be able to tackle numerical solution of algebraic and diff. equations and a bit of graphics. I want to complement Matlab by several lectures giving students a broader view of numerical computing and related subjects. For example, I'll probably talk about vector vs raster graphics and related software, precision of floating point calculations, intro to latex, importance of standards in software, etc. What I'm looking for: I'd like to have one lecture on FreeBSD and what it can do for numerical analysis. I'm looking for somebody who can come to Bristol on a Tuesday between 31-FEB-2012 and 20-MAR-2012 and give a 50 min lecture from 1400 to 1450 to about 120-150 students. The exact details of the talk are not that important. Some of them would've heard of linux, probably not of FreeBSD. Some of them would've used macs, but unlikely any software beyound MS office. The talk can just raise the students' awareness that numerical analysis tools available via FreeBSD ports are an alternative to Matlab. I'll pay the travel expences (have to double check with the finance office) but cannot pay for the talk itself. If you are interested, or have another idea, please get in touch directly. Thanks Anton -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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: umass regression
At Tue, 3 Jan 2012 18:15:32 +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: The following transaction shows that the device supports two luns. I suspect that there is a miscommunication between UMASS and CAM layer. Hi, I have posted about the same issue some days ago to -scsi@. http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86r4zkx50t.wl%poyopoyo To: freebsd-s...@freebsd.org Subject: Garmin Edge705: LUN1 of umass device not recognized I follow your suspicion as I figured out this regression happened at r208911, modification to LUN discovery code. -- kuro ___ 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: umass regression
I managed to snip out the link I was referring to, here it is: [1] http://www.fabianowski.eu/garmin_dakota_20_attach.usbdump ___ 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: umass regression
Interesting timing. I am just in the middle of a debug session to try and debug this. I know nothing about umass and/or SCSI, so it is all one big learning experience for me. Here is what I am seeing (snippets from [1]): * SCSI command REPORT LUNS is sent: 55 53 42 43 03 00 00 00 18 00 00 00 80 00 0C A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18 00 00 00 00 00 00 * List of LUNs is received: 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 This list contains exactly two LUNs, 0 and 1. The list is then processed by scsi_xpt.c. After reading the first entry, LUN 0 is scanned and da0 created. Then, the next entry is read. And something seems to go wrong here. The debug output I get is: cam_debug: next lun to try at index 1 is 0 IMHO, this should not be. The entry at index 1 is LUN 1, not LUN 0. It seems that instead of scanning LUN 0 and LUN 1, the code ends up scanning LUN 0 twice. I have no idea why though. - Bartosz ___ 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: umass regression
Looking into this further, I think that the issue is down to Garmin devices supplying incorrect information. In reply to the SCSI INQUIRY command, the HISUP bit is not set. This means that single level LUN structure is used (which appears to be all that FreeBSD supports anyway). Consequently, the second LUN should be of the form: 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 Instead, the device reports a second LUN of: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 This is invalid as it uses all four addressing levels, not the single level LUN structure. I think a quirk will be needed here, for example one that ignores the list entries and looks at the length of the list only, assuming that for a list of length n, the LUNs will be 0, 1, 2, ..., n - 1. - Bartosz ___ 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: FS hang when creating snapshots on a UFS SU+J setup
On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:55:36PM +, Alain BRAUNER wrote: May be i overlooked something but i can confirm the two precedents reports and PR kern/163310, i have the same freeze when trying to issue snapshot on the root fs when SUJ is ON. I confirm seeing this problem on my box. $ uname -a FreeBSD linbox 9.0-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 9.0-PRERELEASE #0: Fri Dec 30 19:49:47 IST 2011 root@linbox:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 The source was csupped from 9-STABLE after the Christmas advisories, so it doesnt have the commits after that. This is the GENERIC kernel. I never be able to create a snapshot when SUJ is activated. In my case, I am trying to take a backup using dump, and I was able to for e.g., take a backup of /, but failed with /var. Since I use tmux, I know that mksnap_ffs had taken over the machine -- the box was only slightly interactive -- I could type ps axl, but did not get any output. CPU utilisation was at 100% and the only way I could get out of it was to hit the reset button the the box. Also no problems when SUJ is disable. +1, I have switched SUJ off and now just have SU on like in 8-STABLE, and am seeing no problems with my backups. Is this a known issue with SUJ -- and is SUJ not yet ready to be used on 9-STABLE? Cheers, Gautam ___ 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 ___ 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
disable GUPROF for archs other than i386 and amd64
Hi,
I'm working on profiling support for powerpc64 and I struggled over the
mprofiler-epilogue option not being known on the ppc gcc.
Disabling this option for ppc uncovered the next thing, MCOUNT_OVERHEAD,
MEXITCOUNT_OVERHEAD and MEXITCOUNT_OVERHEAD_GETLABEL are also not
defined. Not only on ppc but everywhere except on i386 and amd64.
So for the time being, would it be ok if I disable GUPROF on archs other
than i386 and amd64?
The patch below would be a candidate.
Thoughts?
TIA,
Andreas
Index: conf/kern.pre.mk
===
--- conf/kern.pre.mk(revision 229741)
+++ conf/kern.pre.mk(working copy)
@@ -103,13 +103,16 @@
.if defined(PROFLEVEL) ${PROFLEVEL} = 1
CFLAGS+= -DGPROF -falign-functions=16
+PROF= -pg
.if ${PROFLEVEL} = 2
CFLAGS+= -DGPROF4 -DGUPROF
-PROF= -pg -mprofiler-epilogue
+.if ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == i386 || ${MACHINE_CPUARCH} == amd64
+PROF+= -mprofiler-epilogue
.else
-PROF= -pg
+.error GUPROF not supported on ${MACHINE_CPUARCH}.
.endif
.endif
+.endif
DEFINED_PROF= ${PROF}
# Put configuration-specific C flags last (except for ${PROF}) so that
they
___
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: umass regression
Replying to myself one last time, the kind of quirk I was thinking of actually does exist already. It is called CAM_QUIRK_NORPTLUNS. Enabling this quirk fixes the issue for me - both LUNs are detected and two umass devices appear. I submitted a patch in the following PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=163932 Thanks for the pointers and discussion that led to this solution. - Bartosz ___ 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: umass regression
At Sun, 08 Jan 2012 21:06:57 +0200, Bartosz Fabianowski wrote: Replying to myself one last time, the kind of quirk I was thinking of actually does exist already. It is called CAM_QUIRK_NORPTLUNS. Enabling this quirk fixes the issue for me - both LUNs are detected and two umass devices appear. I submitted a patch in the following PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=163932 Hi, I now aware of why my da1 did not appear once I tried this quirk the other day; I set it FIXED device. It should be REMOVABLE device as yours. ugen0.5: vendor 0x091e at usbus0 umass0: vendor 0x091e product 0x2271, class 0/0, rev 1.10/5.09, addr 5 on usbus0 umass0: SCSI over Bulk-Only; quirks = 0x4000 umass0:10:0:-1: Attached to scbus10 da0 at umass-sim0 bus 0 scbus10 target 0 lun 0 da0: Garmin Edge 705 Flash 1.00 Removable Direct Access SCSI-5 device da0: 1.000MB/s transfers da0: 976MB (1998848 512 byte sectors: 64H 32S/T 976C) da1 at umass-sim0 bus 0 scbus10 target 0 lun 1 da1: Garmin Edge 705 SD Card 1.00 Removable Direct Access SCSI-5 device da1: 1.000MB/s transfers da1: 1910MB (3911680 512 byte sectors: 255H 63S/T 243C) Thanks for the pointers and discussion that led to this solution. Thank you very much. Great analysis. -- kuro ___ 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
flex or reflex
Hi, I am willing to update our flex in base, my first motivation is to be able to have reentrant lexer in base, I first went to the http://flex.sourceforge.net derivative from flex 2.5.4, I've imported it in contrib, and I'm able to build the whole base using the 2.5.35 version (almost vanilla) and with just one or two small fixes from from .l files (mostly adding %option nounistd to fix warnings) One of the major problem of this version is that it uses m4 (it is compatible with our m4 version in base - the recently updated one). Another alternative is to use reflex (http://www.invisible-island.net/reflex/reflex.html) which seems a good one because, it is more respectful of the POSIX lex unfortunately it doesn't seem to be able to create reentrant lexer. Given this, I think it is better for us to choose flex. Of course it is still possible to add reentrant feature to our flex, but it would be more painful. After this I plan to import byacc http://www.invisible-island.net/byacc/byacc.html which can generate reentrant parser. regards, Bapt pgp5yYdLHoZLT.pgp Description: PGP signature
CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
I'm doing som data-mining on a pile of ISO images right now. I stuck the ISOs on a UFS2 on a flash-disk for speed, and mdconfig(8)'d them so I could mount them. The traffic pattern his interesting: dT: 1.003s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name [...] 1733733 14661.3 0 00.0 98.2| md39 1733733 234491.3 0 00.0 93.2| da0 Notice the 1:16 ratio on kBps but 1:1 ratio on ops/s ? da0's UFS2 has 32k block-size: magic 19540119 (UFS2) timeWed Jan 4 16:41:47 2012 superblock location 65536 id [ 4f046cf5 c30697ee ] ncg 104 size19537685blocks 19228156 bsize 32768 shift 15 mask0x8000 fsize 4096shift 12 mask0xf000 [...] It looks like every 2k read from CD9660 turns into a 32k block read in the UFS filesystem, without any beneficial caching happening. Less than optimal I'd say... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ 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: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:21:50PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I'm doing som data-mining on a pile of ISO images right now. I stuck the ISOs on a UFS2 on a flash-disk for speed, and mdconfig(8)'d them so I could mount them. The traffic pattern his interesting: dT: 1.003s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name [...] 1733733 14661.3 0 00.0 98.2| md39 1733733 234491.3 0 00.0 93.2| da0 Notice the 1:16 ratio on kBps but 1:1 ratio on ops/s ? da0's UFS2 has 32k block-size: magic 19540119 (UFS2) timeWed Jan 4 16:41:47 2012 superblock location 65536 id [ 4f046cf5 c30697ee ] ncg 104 size19537685blocks 19228156 bsize 32768 shift 15 mask0x8000 fsize 4096shift 12 mask0xf000 [...] It looks like every 2k read from CD9660 turns into a 32k block read in the UFS filesystem, without any beneficial caching happening. Less than optimal I'd say... What is the access patern ? Is it random access, or sequential read (from the cd9660 POV) ? pgpj4AQGx2y89.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
In message 20120108222720.gn31...@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua, Kostik Belousov writes: What is the access patern ? Is it random access, or sequential read (from the cd9660 POV) ? Random access to files in the CD9660 filesystem, which stores files in sequential 2K blocks. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. ___ 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: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:31:06PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message 20120108222720.gn31...@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua, Kostik Belousov writes: What is the access patern ? Is it random access, or sequential read (from the cd9660 POV) ? Random access to files in the CD9660 filesystem, which stores files in sequential 2K blocks. Then it is reasonable. UFS reads full blocks. If you want/plan to use UFS volume for small reads exclusively, you can newfs it with much smaller block size, e.g. 8KB or even 4KB. pgp2u3DjXRzwg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:31:06PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message 20120108222720.gn31...@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua, Kostik Belousov writes: What is the access patern ? Is it random access, or sequential read (from the cd9660 POV) ? Random access to files in the CD9660 filesystem, which stores files in sequential 2K blocks. Then it is reasonable. UFS reads full blocks. If you want/plan to use UFS volume for small reads exclusively, you can newfs it with much smaller block size, e.g. 8KB or even 4KB. I think the complaint is that UFS is reading 32 KB (which includes the 2 KB block and 15 others that will be needed right after) but not caching the 30 KB of data that follows the requested 2 KB. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ 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: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Kostik Belousov kostik...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:31:06PM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message 20120108222720.gn31...@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua, Kostik Belousov writes: What is the access patern ? Is it random access, or sequential read (from the cd9660 POV) ? Random access to files in the CD9660 filesystem, which stores files in sequential 2K blocks. Then it is reasonable. UFS reads full blocks. If you want/plan to use UFS volume for small reads exclusively, you can newfs it with much smaller block size, e.g. 8KB or even 4KB. I think the complaint is that UFS is reading 32 KB (which includes the 2 KB block and 15 others that will be needed right after) but not caching the 30 KB of data that follows the requested 2 KB. Speaking of the increase in block size and frag size, on the FreeNAS side of the house we discovered that the new values make sense with larger disks and memory disks, but they don't make sense with rc.initdiskless's generated md's, et all. So we've hacked rc.initdiskless to use smaller sizes. Just a thought since we're talking about this change from the 8.x defaults to the 9.x defaults. Thanks! -Garrett ___ 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: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On 8 Jan, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I'm doing som data-mining on a pile of ISO images right now. I stuck the ISOs on a UFS2 on a flash-disk for speed, and mdconfig(8)'d them so I could mount them. The traffic pattern his interesting: dT: 1.003s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name [...] 1733733 14661.3 0 00.0 98.2| md39 1733733 234491.3 0 00.0 93.2| da0 Notice the 1:16 ratio on kBps but 1:1 ratio on ops/s ? da0's UFS2 has 32k block-size: magic 19540119 (UFS2) timeWed Jan 4 16:41:47 2012 superblock location 65536 id [ 4f046cf5 c30697ee ] ncg 104 size19537685blocks 19228156 bsize 32768 shift 15 mask0x8000 fsize 4096shift 12 mask0xf000 [...] It looks like every 2k read from CD9660 turns into a 32k block read in the UFS filesystem, without any beneficial caching happening. Probably some confusion about which filesystem layer owns the cached data. It would probably be inefficient to cache the data in both places. The best fix would probably be for CD9660 to think that the underlying device has 32Kb sectors. ___ 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: CD9660/md(4)/UFS22 silly behaviour
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 04:09:00PM -0800, Don Lewis wrote: On 8 Jan, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: I'm doing som data-mining on a pile of ISO images right now. I stuck the ISOs on a UFS2 on a flash-disk for speed, and mdconfig(8)'d them so I could mount them. The traffic pattern his interesting: dT: 1.003s w: 1.000s L(q) ops/sr/s kBps ms/rw/s kBps ms/w %busy Name [...] 1733733 14661.3 0 00.0 98.2| md39 1733733 234491.3 0 00.0 93.2| da0 Notice the 1:16 ratio on kBps but 1:1 ratio on ops/s ? da0's UFS2 has 32k block-size: magic 19540119 (UFS2) timeWed Jan 4 16:41:47 2012 superblock location 65536 id [ 4f046cf5 c30697ee ] ncg 104 size19537685blocks 19228156 bsize 32768 shift 15 mask0x8000 fsize 4096shift 12 mask0xf000 [...] It looks like every 2k read from CD9660 turns into a 32k block read in the UFS filesystem, without any beneficial caching happening. Probably some confusion about which filesystem layer owns the cached data. It would probably be inefficient to cache the data in both places. The best fix would probably be for CD9660 to think that the underlying device has 32Kb sectors. I discussed the issue with phk further. The reason for discarding the 30K of the read 32K block is that md(4) supplies IO_DIRECT flag for VOP_READ, and FFS avoids putting the read data into any cache. Most likely, we can implement a sysctl that would disable direct reads, at the cost of double-buffering the data. For obvious reasons, it is impossible to disable caching from the filesystem living on top of md(4) volume. pgpuHe11Cxjyv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
Hi, On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Peter fb...@peterk.org wrote: Hello, Installed 9-RELEASE amd64, [...] Has 9.0 been released ? I cannot find any announcement, especially on freebsd-announce@, [9.0TODO] has not been updated, there is no ISO image in [0], but there is in [3], dated from Jan 5th 2012 and `origin/releng/9.0' appeared in the . Thanks, - Arnaud [9.0TODO]: http://wiki.freebsd.org/Releng/9.0TODO [0]: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ISO-IMAGES-amd64 [1]: ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/releases/ISO-IMAGES/9.0/ ___ 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: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Peter fb...@peterk.org wrote: Hello, Installed 9-RELEASE amd64, [...] Has 9.0 been released ? I believe nearly all the release work is done and we are just waiting until the isos propagate to the mirrors before we announce the release. I could be totally off base though. -- Eitan Adler ___ 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: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:26:47PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Peter fb...@peterk.org wrote: Hello, Installed 9-RELEASE amd64, [...] Has 9.0 been released ? 9.0 will, and only will, be released when an announcement is made on freebsd-annou...@freebsd.org, containing such things as verified checksums. Any information sent before that happens is not canonical. mcl ___ 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: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
Hi, On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:26:47PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Peter fb...@peterk.org wrote: Hello, Installed 9-RELEASE amd64, [...] Has 9.0 been released ? 9.0 will, and only will, be released when an announcement is made on freebsd-annou...@freebsd.org, containing such things as verified checksums. So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being 9.0 RELEASE (with checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually release images per-se ? - Arnaud ___ 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: stable/9 still looking for packages at 9-current
On 9. Jan 2012, at 01:04 , Arnaud Lacombe wrote: Hi, On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Mark Linimon lini...@lonesome.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:26:47PM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Arnaud Lacombe lacom...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Peter fb...@peterk.org wrote: Hello, Installed 9-RELEASE amd64, [...] Has 9.0 been released ? 9.0 will, and only will, be released when an announcement is made on freebsd-annou...@freebsd.org, containing such things as verified checksums. Correct. So you are saying that FreeBSD is currently providing on ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub images tagged as being 9.0 RELEASE (with checksum provided), in a `releases' directory, which are not actually release images per-se ? s/providing/seeding/ Some of them have actually been replaced the last days. However it will only affect people running sysinstall on the DVD images. The installed result of the base wasn't changed, just a missing file added to the image as you could guess given there was no further commits to release/9.0.0 in SVN. There's also torrents to be started, yadda yadda yadda and some other people working really hard to get all things finished and loose ends together and if they are lucky in between all of this there is an hour or two for a weekend and them having a life. Be patient and wait for the mail maybe somewhen in the upcoming week. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions! It does not matter how good you are. It matters what good you do! ___ 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: ZFS fails with bsdinstaller 9.0RC3
Garrett Cooper wrote: I just tried to install FreeBSD 9.0RC3 with a ZFS-only file system. I succeeded by doing a manual install. The bsdinstaller failed: it would write not write the new filesystem to /mnt as expected (I presume it has overwritten the memstick filesystem at /). I'm relative new to FreeBSD, so I'm trying to understand what I did wrong, or if this is quirk in the bsdinstaller (unlikely). Uh, memory serves me correctly, you were in the zfs root... /me slaps head. I just never thought of that possibility Thanks for your insight! (off-topic) Could I have exited the /mnt jail with exit? I needed to run # zfs set mountpoint=/ zroot but got internal error: failed to initialize ZFS library which indeed is what happens in a chrooted jail. Would there have been another way for me to run the zfs? Regards, Freek PS: sorry for the delayed thank you. I was mostly away from my keyboard this weekend. ___ 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: ZFS fails with bsdinstaller 9.0RC3
On Jan 8, 2012, at 6:46 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote: Garrett Cooper wrote: I just tried to install FreeBSD 9.0RC3 with a ZFS-only file system. I succeeded by doing a manual install. The bsdinstaller failed: it would write not write the new filesystem to /mnt as expected (I presume it has overwritten the memstick filesystem at /). I'm relative new to FreeBSD, so I'm trying to understand what I did wrong, or if this is quirk in the bsdinstaller (unlikely). Uh, memory serves me correctly, you were in the zfs root... /me slaps head. I just never thought of that possibility Thanks for your insight! Np :). (off-topic) Could I have exited the /mnt jail with exit? I needed to run # zfs set mountpoint=/ zroot but got internal error: failed to initialize ZFS library which indeed is what happens in a chrooted jail. Would there have been another way for me to run the ifs? Yes. Instead of choosing Reboot in the last step you could have chosen Live CD; this will dump you into the cd's root instead of the chrooted root. PS: sorry for the delayed thank you. I was mostly away from my keyboard this weekend. No worries :). Cheers! -Garrett___ 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
