Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012, Polytropon wrote: For maximum security, you can use the "old" approach of using fdisk + disklabel (creating slice, creating partitions within slice). This also delivers most compatibility for other systems, if it should be needed, e. g. in a multiboot environment. gpart(8) can create MBR slice/partition layouts (and GPT and other partition schemes). See the man page. There is little reason to use fdisk and bsdlabel any more. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
I went through this exercise to determine if there were boundary issues installing FreeBSD on disks. I concluded that FreeBSD was indeed installing at head boundaries. A colleague then pointed me to http://ivoras.net/blog/tree/2011-01-01.freebsd-on-4k-sector-drives.html which calls into question whether sysinstall and fdisk really are installing FreeBSD's slice at the 64th cylinder. Should I be concerned with this? This came about due to a scenario where Linux would start its filesystem at sector 63, right before the head boundary. On I/O intensive applications, it was common for reads/write to cross the head boundary resulting in unnecessary disk thrashing and long I/O wait times. The issue was corrected in Linux by changing the start cylinder to 2048. Some theorized that FreeBSD was vulnerable to this scenario. Thoughts/feedback? On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Rick Miller wrote: > Hi All, > > Installing FreeBSD 8.x I select "A" at the fdisk partition editor to > use the entire disk. It creates an unused slice with offset 0 and 63 > sectors in size. Then partition 1 starts at sector 63 and utilizes > the remaining disk space. Does sysinstall's diskPartitonEditor macro > automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask > is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head > boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? > > -- > Take care > Rick Miller -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 09:06 PM, Michael Sierchio wrote: On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: Slices isn't the "old" way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml That is EXTREMELY old advice. The general advice, for this and many other things, is - don't do it, but if you do it, know what you're doing. ;-) agree, advice: don't use dedicated disks, it might be "dangerous if another fdisk silently modifies your disk or the BIOS does not understand it. It's still in the FAQ though :) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: > Slices isn't the "old" way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated > disks. Maybe you get a > few kb of extra space. Don't do it. > > http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml That is EXTREMELY old advice. The general advice, for this and many other things, is - don't do it, but if you do it, know what you're doing. ;-) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:58:03 -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 6 July 2012 11:44, Rick Miller wrote: > > Thanks for this explanation. > > > > Is there any performance advantage to using a "dedicated disk" layout > > over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within > > it? > > Slices isn't the "old" way. Compared to the new and modern GPT, it is. :-) However, if you keep using the "old" way, it will still be supported and will not confuse either BIOSes or other systems that are maybe installed on your machine. > There is no perf advantage for dedicated > disks. Maybe you get a > few kb of extra space. I'm also not aware of any performance issues. > Don't do it. > > http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml According to the article, there are some BIOSes that don't seem to like disks not containing a "DOS primary partition" to start their boot chain. While this may be true, I have never experienced it. For maximum security, you can use the "old" approach of using fdisk + disklabel (creating slice, creating partitions within slice). This also delivers most compatibility for other systems, if it should be needed, e. g. in a multiboot environment. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
re. Hi i want to ask a question
> Hi i want to ask a question about the new release of FreeBSD (9) is it > posible to run this release /whit GUI/ in IBM Thinkpad 1161 217 whit this > specs 500 mhz Intel Celeron processor 64mb Ram and 5gb HDD I've been using even slower Thinkpads (300MHz), there are a few things to be aware of. Check on http://www.thinkwiki.org if the ethernet connection is supported, also the graphic card (if you need a Windowmanager). Soundcard can be an issue too. Try to get some more RAM for it. On internet auctions you find them for a few bucks, check on the thinkwiki if the type fits in. From 256MB on it works well, good is 512. The slow processor doesnt matter much if you have enough RAM. Since the harddisk is not very large, you may want to take a look to NetBSD (sorry FreeBSD-gurus). NetBSD is targeted at minimal or exotic computers, you can easily install the precompiled packages without a portstree. I use it for all my Thinkpads (Thinkpad 600, T23 and X31). Cheers herb langhans ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 6 July 2012 11:44, Rick Miller wrote: > Thanks for this explanation. > > Is there any performance advantage to using a "dedicated disk" layout > over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within > it? Slices isn't the "old" way. There is no perf advantage for dedicated disks. Maybe you get a few kb of extra space. Don't do it. http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/09.03.shtml -- Eitan Adler ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
[snip]
>> I think Ryan means partition and not slice?
>> I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use
>> "dangerously dedicated disks"
>
> First of all, it's "dedicated disks", there's nothing dangerous
> related. :-)
>
> If you are using the MBR approach ("old way"), you can do
> either creating a "DOS primary partition", a slice, which
> then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and
> one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b
> and so on.
>
> When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the "bare
> disk", you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with
> it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some
> systems like "Windows" have trouble with this approach,
> but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there
> is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on.
>
> If you are using the GPT approach ("new way"), you create
> partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be
> a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1,
> ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't "DOS primary
> partitions" anymore, outdated systems may not properly
> recognize them.
>
> If you label your partitions (you can do that with both
> approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at
> all.
Thanks for this explanation.
Is there any performance advantage to using a "dedicated disk" layout
over the old way of creating a slice and having your partitions within
it?
[snip]
> To OP:
>
> If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for
> FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make
> sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the
> GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question
> at all.
Thanks again for the concise explanation.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 08:25 PM, Polytropon wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:47:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote:
On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote:
Ryan Coleman writes:
> Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated
> to FreeBSD
Except for swap, right?
Why do you say that?
Robert huff
I think Ryan means partition and not slice?
I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use
"dangerously dedicated disks"
First of all, it's "dedicated disks", there's nothing dangerous
related. :-)
Hi Polytropon
I got this from the docs somewhere, let me search
Ah the FAQ
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/disks.html#DANGEROUSLY-DEDICATED
I don't think it's dangerous either.
Thanks for your explanations.
If you are using the MBR approach ("old way"), you can do
either creating a "DOS primary partition", a slice, which
then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and
one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b
and so on.
When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the "bare
disk", you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with
it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some
systems like "Windows" have trouble with this approach,
but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there
is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on.
If you are using the GPT approach ("new way"), you create
partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be
a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1,
ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't "DOS primary
partitions" anymore, outdated systems may not properly
recognize them.
If you label your partitions (you can do that with both
approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at
all.
Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still
there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms)
Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a
Correct, this relation can be constructed.
To OP:
If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for
FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make
sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the
GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question
at all.
Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS mount error: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
On 07/06/2012 07:25 PM, Walter Hurry wrote: On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:55:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote: Are you root when mounting on the client? From looking at your prompt # I think you are, but I ask just to make sure. You can also take a look at http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network- nfs.html in the handbook Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm running as root on the client when I try the mount. It was the handbook I was following in my attempt to set up NFS. OK. With -n (allow from non root users) for mountd the mount succeeds although without it doesn't but you are root on the client. The nfs server is use is still 7.4 and I cannot find a difference in the man pages of 7 and 9 mountd and mount_nfs regarding to this issue. In regard to the security implications, I think that we don't want mounts from trusted clients by a non root user who cannot bind to privileged ports, thus deny unprivileged ports. Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 19:47:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote:
> On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote:
> > Ryan Coleman writes:
> >
> >> > Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated
> >> > to FreeBSD
> >>
> >> Except for swap, right?
> > Why do you say that?
> >
> >
> > Robert huff
> >
> >
> >
>
> I think Ryan means partition and not slice?
> I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use
> "dangerously dedicated disks"
First of all, it's "dedicated disks", there's nothing dangerous
related. :-)
If you are using the MBR approach ("old way"), you can do
either creating a "DOS primary partition", a slice, which
then will contain your partitions: a swap partition and
one or more UFS partitions. So you have ad0s1a, ad0s1b
and so on.
When you omit the slice and create the partitions on the "bare
disk", you have a dedicated layout. FreeBSD will run with
it without any problem. It _may_ be possible that some
systems like "Windows" have trouble with this approach,
but if you're going to use FreeBSD only on that disk, there
is no danger, no problem. You have ad0a, ad0b and so on.
If you are using the GPT approach ("new way"), you create
partitions using a different tool set, setting them to be
a file system or a swap partition. You end up in ad0p1,
ad0p2 and so on. Note that those aren't "DOS primary
partitions" anymore, outdated systems may not properly
recognize them.
If you label your partitions (you can do that with both
approaches), you don't need to deal with device names at
all.
> Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still
> there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms)
> Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a
Correct, this relation can be constructed.
To OP:
If you omit the slice and just create two partitions (one for
FS and one for swap), FreeBSD will use this fine. Just make
sure to set the boot parameters properly. Or simply use the
GPT-related tools, so you don't have to deal with the question
at all.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Question about gmirror priorities
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Michael Ross wrote: > Hi, > > the manpage says for ``gmirror label'': > > The order of components is important, > because a component's priority is based on its position > (starting from 0 to 255). > > > so I would expect to have different priorities for the components, > yet both are listed with a priority of 0: > I would expect components to have a different priority if I assigned them one. Otherwise I would assume they have the default priority. I don't know if makes it makes any difference for the algo you are running anyways. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use "dangerously dedicated disks" Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a you use GUID partition table. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? wrong. i said slices (==DOS/Windoze MBR partitions), not disklabel ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Ryan Coleman wrote: > Sector 64 is sector 63 when you start at 0. OMG, so right...I cannot believe that went over my head! Thanks for pointing it out. It lets me know that diskPartitionEditor is automatically selecting start and end sectors at boundaries. Thanks! -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 07/06/2012 07:28 PM, Robert Huff wrote: Ryan Coleman writes: > Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated > to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff I think Ryan means partition and not slice? I would not recommend no slices at all, It's deprecated to use "dangerously dedicated disks" Starting with 9 I don't see slices in mount ouput anymore but still there are FreeBSD partitions in slices (which is a partitions in dos terms) Example / is now disk0p1 it used to be disk0s1a Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS mount error: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:55:27 +0200, Bas Smeelen wrote: > Are you root when mounting on the client? > From looking at your prompt # I think you are, but I ask just to make > sure. > You can also take a look at > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network- nfs.html > in the handbook Thanks for the reply. Yes, I'm running as root on the client when I try the mount. It was the handbook I was following in my attempt to set up NFS. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Ryan Coleman writes: > > Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated > > to FreeBSD > > Except for swap, right? Why do you say that? Robert huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS mount error: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 12:42:02 -0400, kpneal wrote: > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 04:03:27PM +, Walter Hurry wrote: >> I am running FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE (64 bit), with a VirtualBox VM also >> running the same. >> >> On the host I am running NFS server: >> >> $ showmount -e Exports list on localhost: >> /usr/home Everyone >> >> But when I try to mount is on the client (the VM guest) I get this: >> >> # mount xx:/usr/home /mnt [tcp] xx:/usr/home: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: >> Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak # >> >> On the server, in /var/log/messages I see this: >> >> mountd[29140]: mount request from nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn from unprivileged >> port >> >> So I infer that the 'unprivileged port' bit is the problem. > > That's odd. At 8.2 the documentation (man page) on mount_nfs says that > reserved ports are the default. I'd be surprised if 9.0 was different. > *shrug* > > Try running mountd with the "-n" option. If I understand the man page > then it allows mountd to accept mounts from port numbers less than 1024. > Note that the mountd protocol is distinct from the NFS protocol and so > rpcinfo can't really tell you anything about mountd. Thanks. Yes, the mount worked fine on the client when the server mountd was started with the "-n" option. That leads me to two more questions: Why would mount_nfs be using an unprivileged port by default? As far as I can see from "man mount_nfs" the only relevant option would be (section of manpage reformatted for convenience): port=⟨port_number⟩ Use specified port number for NFS requests. The default is to query the portmapper for the NFS port. I'm afraid that due to my lack of knowledge in this area, that doesn't mean a lot to me. Are there security implications in using an "unprivileged port"? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS mount error: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
On 07/06/2012 06:03 PM, Walter Hurry wrote: I am running FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE (64 bit), with a VirtualBox VM also running the same. On the host I am running NFS server: $ showmount -e Exports list on localhost: /usr/home Everyone But when I try to mount is on the client (the VM guest) I get this: # mount xx:/usr/home /mnt [tcp] xx:/usr/home: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak # Hi Walter Are you root when mounting on the client? From looking at your prompt # I think you are, but I ask just to make sure. You can also take a look at http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-nfs.html in the handbook On the server, in /var/log/messages I see this: mountd[29140]: mount request from nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn from unprivileged port So I infer that the 'unprivileged port' bit is the problem. Further information - on the client: $ rpcinfo xx program version netid addressserviceowner 104tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 102tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 102udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104tcp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103tcp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104udp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103udp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 103local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 102local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 132udp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 133udp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 132udp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 133udp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 132tcp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 133tcp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 132tcp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 133tcp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 151udp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 153udp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 151tcp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 153tcp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 151udp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 153udp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 151tcp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 153tcp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser $ What am I doing wrong? I am new to NFS. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Disclaimer: http://www.ose.nl/email ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD vs Hurd what is the differences?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> Not had tme to pursued it though. >>> & I dont feel like exporting that data public >>> in case its already gone too far. >> >> >> You don't have to export it at all. >> Can you confirm the data within is the same as say the same >> file in /etc or ~/.ssh? If that's really the case, it's a problem. >> > the real problem is that not only "better" (not complicated and messy > bloatware) browsers are unavailable, but WILL NOT BE available in any time. browsers are the new OS and should make use of chroot(), seccomp, systrace, jails, etc. chromium does a lot of that. Maybe I should think about using it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
On 7/6/2012 11:43 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote: automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? yes. 63 is normal. Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD Except for swap, right? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD vs Hurd what is the differences?
Not had tme to pursued it though. & I dont feel like exporting that data public in case its already gone too far. You don't have to export it at all. Can you confirm the data within is the same as say the same file in /etc or ~/.ssh? If that's really the case, it's a problem. the real problem is that not only "better" (not complicated and messy bloatware) browsers are unavailable, but WILL NOT BE available in any time. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? yes. 63 is normal. Anyway just don't make slices at all if your disk is dedicated to FreeBSD ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
NFS mount error: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak
I am running FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE (64 bit), with a VirtualBox VM also running the same. On the host I am running NFS server: $ showmount -e Exports list on localhost: /usr/home Everyone But when I try to mount is on the client (the VM guest) I get this: # mount xx:/usr/home /mnt [tcp] xx:/usr/home: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Authentication error; why = Client credential too weak # On the server, in /var/log/messages I see this: mountd[29140]: mount request from nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn from unprivileged port So I infer that the 'unprivileged port' bit is the problem. Further information - on the client: $ rpcinfo xx program version netid addressserviceowner 104tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 102tcp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 102udp 0.0.0.0.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104tcp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103tcp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104udp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 103udp6 ::.0.111 rpcbindsuperuser 104local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 103local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 102local /var/run/rpcbind.sock rpcbindsuperuser 132udp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 133udp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 132udp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 133udp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 132tcp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 133tcp 0.0.0.0.8.1nfssuperuser 132tcp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 133tcp6 ::.8.1 nfssuperuser 151udp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 153udp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 151tcp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 153tcp6 ::.2.94mountd superuser 151udp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 153udp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 151tcp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser 153tcp 0.0.0.0.2.94 mountd superuser $ What am I doing wrong? I am new to NFS. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: video buffer location
On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 11:27:44PM +0100, RW wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 22:34:21 +0200 > Actually Opera already has a setting: "Enable plug-ins only on > demand" (under preferences->advanced->content). It disables all > plugins by default and you can click on an individual placeholder to > enable a plug-in for a specific object, so you can watch a flash > movie or turn on a flash navigation menu without having to turn-on any > flash adverts on the same page. Trying it out on www.spiegel.de. But I cannot find the "individual placeholder". Where is it ? -- Harald Weis ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [Bulk] "npviewer" error
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Carmel wrote: > I am running FreeBSD-8.3 STABLE amd64. I continually see this error > message in the "/var/log/messages" file: > > (npviewer.bin): syscall pipe2 not implemented > > The program crashes continually also. I have tried doing an R&R without > favorable results. Does anyone have any idea what the problem might be > or where I should escalate the problem to? > > -- > Carmel > carmel...@hotmail.com Hi Carmel, npviewer.bin is related to Flash Player. Flash Player is so buggy, not especially on FreeBSD. Uninstall it if you don't need it (if possible.) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
"npviewer" error
Carmel writes:
> I am running FreeBSD-8.3 STABLE amd64. I continually see this
> error message in the "/var/log/messages" file:
>
> (npviewer.bin): syscall pipe2 not implemented
>
> The program crashes continually also. I have tried doing an R&R
> without favorable results. Does anyone have any idea what the
> problem might be or where I should escalate the problem to?
emulat...@freebsd.org
("npviewer" is a program that allows Linux plug-ins to run under
native Firefox/Seamonkey.)
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Does FreeBSD start slices at head boundaries?
Hi All, Installing FreeBSD 8.x I select "A" at the fdisk partition editor to use the entire disk. It creates an unused slice with offset 0 and 63 sectors in size. Then partition 1 starts at sector 63 and utilizes the remaining disk space. Does sysinstall's diskPartitonEditor macro automatically start partitions at head boundaries? The reason I ask is because I am most familiar with sector 64 being the start of a head boundary as opposed to 63. Is my understanding incorrect? -- Take care Rick Miller ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
"npviewer" error
I am running FreeBSD-8.3 STABLE amd64. I continually see this error message in the "/var/log/messages" file: (npviewer.bin): syscall pipe2 not implemented The program crashes continually also. I have tried doing an R&R without favorable results. Does anyone have any idea what the problem might be or where I should escalate the problem to? -- Carmel carmel...@hotmail.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Question about gmirror priorities
Hi, the manpage says for ``gmirror label'': The order of components is important, because a component's priority is based on its position (starting from 0 to 255). so I would expect to have different priorities for the components, yet both are listed with a priority of 0: gmirror list Geom name: gm0 State: COMPLETE Components: 2 Balance: load Slice: 4096 Flags: NONE GenID: 0 SyncID: 1 ID: 1162650455 Providers: 1. Name: mirror/gm0 Mediasize: 320072932864 (298G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r2w2e5 Consumers: 1. Name: ad4 Mediasize: 320072933376 (298G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r1w1e1 State: ACTIVE Priority: 0 Flags: NONE GenID: 0 SyncID: 1 ID: 2769583838 2. Name: ad6 Mediasize: 320072933376 (298G) Sectorsize: 512 Mode: r1w1e1 State: ACTIVE Priority: 0 Flags: NONE GenID: 0 SyncID: 1 ID: 540951176 Where is my misunderstanding? Regards, Michael ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: FreeBSD vs Hurd what is the differences?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > Hi, > Reference: >> From: Carsten Mattner >> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 00:28:32 +0200 >> Message-id: >> > > Carsten Mattner wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Wojciech Puchar >> wrote: >> >>> As for reading anything else than internal firefox data it is not >> >>> possible >> >>> except very basic bug is there. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes otherwise all the flash sites would have gathered files from local >> >> disks. >> > >> > >> > true. javascript activity is sandboxed. But within that sandbox there are >> > million bugs. >> > >> > i've already seen trojans that completely took control over firefox. >> > But - in spite it was windoze - ONLY firefox. Everything else was fine. >> > >> > Deleting firefox user data removed the trojan. >> >> Nothing is impossible at that complexity. >> >> I'd still like to know what Julian saw as you didn't see that. >> Did it really contain a script which made it fetch random files from the >> local disk? > > I don't know. > I wrote how I obtained the data patern I saw, in my: Fair enough :). >> Message-id: <201207050936.q659awci016...@fire.js.berklix.net> >> Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 11:36:32 +0200 > > Others very welcome to try it. Of course. >> Julian? > >> Which Firefox version? > > Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1 I don't want to be that guy whos says it but that version is old and may contain widely known holes. >> I am a little concerned. > > Me too ! > Not had tme to pursued it though. > & I dont feel like exporting that data public > in case its already gone too far. You don't have to export it at all. Can you confirm the data within is the same as say the same file in /etc or ~/.ssh? If that's really the case, it's a problem. > I suggest others create a dummy guest account & then accesss URL & do > page save as I wrote. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: how to correctly distinguish broadcast udp packets vs unicast (socket, pcap or bpf)?
Tnx!
Worked like a charm, with skipped init and other checks, just the
control point parts:
<...>
int optval=1;
setsockopt(root_socket, IPPROTO_IP, IP_RECVDSTADDR,
&optval, sizeof(optval))
<...>
char t[200];
unsigned int sender_len;
struct msghdr msg;
struct iovec iov;
struct sockaddr_in from;
sender_len = sizeof(from);
msg.msg_name = &from;
msg.msg_namelen = sender_len;
msg.msg_iov = &iov;
msg.msg_iovlen = 1;
msg.msg_iov->iov_base = &u;
msg.msg_iov->iov_len = sizeof(packet_container);
msg.msg_control = t;
msg.msg_controllen = sizeof(t);
msg.msg_flags = 0;
<...>
result = recvmsg(root_socket,&msg,0);
<...>
struct cmsghdr *cmsg=NULL;
uint32_t* dst_ip=NULL;
for (cmsg = CMSG_FIRSTHDR(&msg); cmsg != NULL; cmsg =
CMSG_NXTHDR(&msg,cmsg)) {
if (cmsg->cmsg_level == IPPROTO_IP && cmsg->cmsg_type
== IP_RECVDSTADDR) {
dst_ip=(uint32_t*)CMSG_DATA(cmsg);
break;
}
}
<...>
And at that point we have destination ip in dst_ip var:)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Hi i want to ask a question
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 04:05:36 -0400, Thomas Mueller wrote: > On part 1, it might be possible to build things on the old > machine, but only little things. It _will_ work, it just will take some time. If that isn't a major concern -- no problem. If the machine is low on RAM, there should at least be sufficient swap space. > Ports tree and source tree would really pinch the hard disk > space (5 GB). Using them via NFS (when needed) or as read-only source from a CD could be possible. However, I'd suggest using the NFS approach during installation time. On the described hardware, the usage paradigm should be: "INSTALL ONCE, THEN KEEP USING". If updates are required, using an "external compiler" would be the best choice. In case you're only using precompiled packages (installs via pkg_add -r), you don't need the ports tree at all. For dealing with the system (from /usr/src), if it has to be present on disk, /usr/obj could be used via NFS on some scratch disk. There are many possibilities to get the job done. They all require some time, but it _is_ possible. > On part 2, do you mean lynx or links? I think it was links that also had a GUI port. There may be other lightweight browsers (like dillo) that one could consider using. Of course none of them will utilize "Flash". :-) > Links can be built with graphics, there is even a DOS port, > but a far cry from Firefox (try Midori?) which have no DOS ports. > I think there is also w3m? I know w3m is a very nice text mode browser, I can't say if it has graphics support. > Building the kernel is nowhere near as time-consuming as buildworld. True, but if you update kernel and world, both have to be processes. Otherwise, you could stay on the installed version level (e. g. 9.0) and only tweak GENERIC into something that is more efficient. But in that case, sources should not be altered. > On my older computer, building a custom kernel took about 25 minutes > for NetBSD, 75 minutes for FreeBSD 8.2, and 130 minutes for Gentoo > Linux, and the Gentoo Linux kernel proved nonbootable. That's normal. :-) > On the last part, time required to download an ISO would depend on > type of connection more than CPU speed. Sure, no big CPU load. I just wanted to illustrate that this old system could do things that some "modern" PCs fail to do: Just imagine users complaining about skipping audio when they move windows across the screen... :-) And I still have the machine I described. "Mister Coffee" is currently installed with FreeBSD 8.2, expecting to be used for experimental projects as an internal file / IRC / maybe OA server. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Hi i want to ask a question
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:00:11 +0300 (EEST), Ivan Ivanov wrote: > Hi i want to ask a question about the new release of FreeBSD (9) > is it posible to run this release /whit GUI/ in IBM Thinkpad 1161 > 217 whit this specs 500 mhz Intel Celeron processor 64mb Ram and > 5gb HDD Polytropon responded: > It is very well possible, but you need to pay attention to > a few things: > 1. You won't be able to build things from source on that > machine. Consider using packages for installation, or a > second system to build and export (via NFS) the data required. > 2. You will have to choose wisely what you install. You > can install the OS plus X, and then be very selective > regarding the applications. Firefox for example may be > a bit heavy as a web browser, but there are alternatives, > such as dillo or lynx (in graphics mode). Also choose your > work and multimedia applications wisely. There _are_ still > programs in the ports collection that are very low on bloat, > but you need to do some research to find them. > 3. For using your applications within the GUI, choose a > good window manager, e. g. FVWM or XFCE 3 (not 4!), or > IceWM or Blackbox or olvwm or something comparable. You > need to try which one fits your needs. Maybe a tiling > window manager would be even better -- but I can't recommend > one, because their magic didn't open up to my ignorant > mind yet. :-) > 4. Refering to no. 1, you should also aim to build a custom > kernel on another machine that exactly fits the hardware that > you have present in the Thinkpad. Streamline your kernel. > Make it reflect the present hardware configuration. Maybe > there are even some options and tunables to make it run > better than the GENERIC kernel. > The main limiting factor I see is the 64 MB RAM. If you have > the chance, try to upgrade it. I know that's not easily > possible. > Note: I've been using FreeBSD 4 and 5 on a 150 MHz Pentium (1) > with 64 MB (later on: 128 MB) RAM and 8 GB disk. This machine > could compile the world (even though it needed 24 h to do that), > fetch an ISO via FTP, play MP3 music via xmms, and still offer > a well responding web browsing experience using Opera. NO JOKE. > "Mister Coffee" was my first FreeBSD workstation. :-) On part 1, it might be possible to build things on the old machine, but only little things. Ports tree and source tree would really pinch the hard disk space (5 GB). Would you actually boot the IBM Thinkpad by network, keep source and ports trees on a newer computer's hard drive, do the building on the newer computer, and install by NFS? I've thought of doing that, have no intention to upgrade FreeBSD 8.2 to 9.0 on old computer, where FreeBSD slice is 12 GB and I'd have to rebuild all ports , and in all likelihood bog down. On part 2, do you mean lynx or links? Lynx is text-mode but can show images on a separate screen: I did that with DR-DOS 7.03 long ago and more recently FreeDOS. Links can be built with graphics, there is even a DOS port, but a far cry from Firefox (try Midori?) which have no DOS ports. I think there is also w3m? Building the kernel is nowhere near as time-consuming as buildworld. On my older computer, building a custom kernel took about 25 minutes for NetBSD, 75 minutes for FreeBSD 8.2, and 130 minutes for Gentoo Linux, and the Gentoo Linux kernel proved nonbootable. On the last part, time required to download an ISO would depend on type of connection more than CPU speed. Tom ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Hi i want to ask a question
1. You won't be able to build things from source on that machine. Consider using packages for installation, or a second system to build and export (via NFS) the data required. You can but... too slow 3. For using your applications within the GUI, choose a good window manager, e. g. FVWM or XFCE 3 (not 4!), or IceWM or Blackbox or olvwm or something comparable. You need to try which one fits your needs. Maybe a tiling window manager would be even better -- but I can't recommend one, because their magic didn't open up to my ignorant mind yet. :-) Actually everything should work fine with window managers you mentioned. The real problems are "modern" programs like firefox. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
