On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David O'Brien" writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 20:33:59 +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Problem is many still feel it should not be used on / .
Why not ?
Because a small root partition fills up artificially during "make
installworld" and/or "make installkernel". Everybody understands _why_
it happens, but that
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 20:33:59 +0100
From: Poul-Henning Kamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David O'Brien" writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 10:32:23PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
that's a [minor] POLA violation.
I fail to see what is wrong with defaulting to `off'.
--
--
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 05:12:13PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
There's always the 'nosoftdep' mount option. It's also possible to
enable it by default on everything except the root filesystem, but
that's a [minor] POLA violation.
I fail to see
From: James FitzGibbon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 04:19:51 -0500
Are there any issues/plans to let users enable softupdates from inside of
sysinstall ?
No "plans", but it's certainly something which could be done.
If this is a good
* Jordan Hubbard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010310 14:52]:
H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went ahead and
did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think, come tomorrow's
snapshot.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I love FreeBSD
I've got a box that is in desperate
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 11:51:54AM -0800, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
I think this is really the only place to do it, just to ease
confusion. You also wouldn't need to put superblock-frobbing code
into sysinstall, just bundle tunefs into the mfsroot.
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs?
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug that newfs
didn't gain that functionality when it was added to tunefs.
I wrote a patch to do this some time back.
From: "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug that newfs
d
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
From: "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: sysinstall option for softupdates
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:43:52 -0800
Why not add the softupdates option to newfs? Since newfs contains every
tunefs option other than softupdates, I consider it a bug
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and commit the ones
posted?
--
-- David ([EMAIL
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I take this on and commit
Dima Dorfman wrote:
"David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:06:20PM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote:
I seem to recall Paul Saab has a set for both -current and -stable.
Someone else also just posted a URL to a set of patches.
Is Paul going to commit his, or can I
Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The version of the patch for -current uses the softdep mount option only.
If you remove the mount option, you dont get softupdates.
In this case, it might be better to just turn it on by default and let
those who don't want it somewhere use "nosoftdep";
At 11:51 AM -0800 3/10/01, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
H. OK, you intrigued me enough by this that I just went
ahead and did it in -current. :) Let me know what you think,
come tomorrow's snapshot.
Ooo. Might this be MFC-able before 4.3 goes out the door?
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn
On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 09:51:46PM -0800, Dima Dorfman wrote:
Are you talking about se's patches to make softdep a mount option,
yes
The former isn't something you can just drop in. You'd have to decide
if softdep should be the default.
It defaults to what tunefs sets it to -- POLA.
If
19 matches
Mail list logo
