Steven Hartland wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
...
Is there something I'm missing?
I can't see anything missing there from the reproduction steps.
Was ad0s1g also ok? The slight differences I did here where
the following but I cant seem them being significant:
1. dump -a0uL -C 32 -f
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Pardon me showing up on hackers@ (I ain't one), but I have
to ask
So, when you do this, you are using /stand/sysinstall, or
**/usr**/sbin/sysinstall?
/usr/sbin/sysinstall as /stand doesnt exist on recent
versions of FreeBSD. Although I see where you are going
and
Steven Hartland wrote:
I've been repartitioning some of our machines here and
found that using the following method sysinstall creates
corrupt filesystems.
1. Boot a machine using an nfs mounted /usr
2. Run: sysctl kern.geom.debugflags=16 to enable writing
to the disk mbr
3. run
On 03/01/07 17:42, Steven Hartland wrote:
I've been repartitioning some of our machines here and
found that using the following method sysinstall creates
corrupt filesystems.
1. Boot a machine using an nfs mounted /usr
2. Run: sysctl kern.geom.debugflags=16 to enable writing
to the disk mbr
3.
Sam Leffler wrote:
There's a debug flag you can turn on somewhere in the sysinstall
menus. It may help diagnose what sysinstall is doing wrong by
checking the log msgs. I find sysinstall is best diagnosed inside
qemu or vmware so you destructively operate on disk images w/o hosing
a real
Eric Anderson wrote:
I don't know about the fs corruption, but the double mounts is
something you asked it to do (maybe unknowingly). When you added
that partition, one of the options is to mount it.
Clearly an easy work around in that case then but personally
I would expect a mount to a
On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
I don't know about the fs corruption, but the double mounts is
something you asked it to do (maybe unknowingly). When you added
that partition, one of the options is to mount it.
Clearly an easy work around in that case then but
Eric Anderson wrote:
On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common,
and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only
partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or
NFS over it if you detect the one
On 03/02/07 08:37, Steven Hartland wrote:
Eric Anderson wrote:
On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common,
and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only
partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:11:52AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common, and
very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only partition
(vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or NFS over it if
you detect the
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Eric Anderson wrote:
I don't know about the fs corruption, but the double mounts is
something you asked it to do (maybe unknowingly). When you added
that partition, one of the options is to mount it.
Clearly an easy work
On 03/02/07 08:44, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:11:52AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common, and
very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only partition
(vnode file, etc) and then mount a different
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:11:52AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common,
and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only
partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or
NFS over
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Hartland [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
2. Once the blank /usr was mounted over the working nfs /usr
apps under /usr couldnt be run e.g. vim gave me no such file..
This is correct behavior. If you want to see the files underneath a
mounted file system, you need to use the
On 03/02/07 09:37, Steven Hartland wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:11:52AM -0600, Eric Anderson wrote:
Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common,
and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only
partition (vnode file, etc) and
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:37:21PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
I've rerun the test just to confirm but there are definitely
two seperate issues here:
1. The ufs created by sysinstall after a repartition is corrupt.
This is totally unrelated to the overlay of /usr as both /usr
and /data (
Eric Anderson wrote:
So try the same test, with *only* the data partition, without messing
with the /usr stuff..
Will do, will be a little while need to wait for some new machines
to come in before I can test again.
Steve
This e.mail is
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Pardon my ignorance, but can you give me a step-by-step on how to
reproduce this? I have a couple VMware FreeBSD sessions up and
want to see if I can reproduce it there. I also have an actual
FreeBSD testbox at home which I can format and reinstall.
(I'm not denying the
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 05:00:24PM -, Steven Hartland wrote:
No problem if you have the resources / time to test this now
thats great.
Here's the steps I used, if you have any questions just shout:
1. Boot a normal 6.2 install
Done. Booted CD image #1, did a standard install, chose
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
...
Is there something I'm missing?
I can't see anything missing there from the reproduction steps.
Was ad0s1g also ok? The slight differences I did here where
the following but I cant seem them being significant:
1. dump -a0uL -C 32 -f /nfs/usr.dmp /usr
2. restore rf
I've been repartitioning some of our machines here and
found that using the following method sysinstall creates
corrupt filesystems.
1. Boot a machine using an nfs mounted /usr
2. Run: sysctl kern.geom.debugflags=16 to enable writing
to the disk mbr
3. run sysinstall, Customise - Label
4. Delete
21 matches
Mail list logo
