Hi,
I'm curious about GELIs theoretical behavior when faced with errors, and also
any experience anyone might have.
As an example, if I run ZFS with raidz over X drives, then the zpool should
have no issue surviving the complete loss of a full disk. Also, the familiar
FAILURE - READ_DMA or
On 10. mars 2011, at 18.38, 6412037...@email.uscc.net wrote:
Does OpenBSD use the same kernel as FreeBSD?
I think your question about the relationship between *nixes can best be
answered by a 4487 × 29437 diagram, which can be found in several formats here:
http://www.unix-diagram.org/
Terje
On 16. sep. 2011, at 12:31, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
Right now I defined an entire array of 8TB ( all 16 disks ) separated in two
pieces. 50 GB for FreeBSD to boot and the rest available to configure as
storage.
ZFS will want to write to it's ZIL (zfs intent log) before writing to
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
Got a measly 74MB/sec.
You can't ask for advice, get it, do something completely different, and then
complain that it didn't work.
Neither can you ask people to donate their time, if you won't spend yours.
In other words: if
On 16. sep. 2011, at 16:18, free...@top-consulting.net wrote:
zpool create data da1
zfs create data/maildomains
zfs set sync=disabled data/maildomains
Just for the archives... sync=disabled won't disable disable the zil, it'll
disable waiting for a disk-flush on fsync etc. With a battery
On 2. apr. 2013, at 13.44, Joar Jegleim wrote:
So my question(s) to the list would be:
In my setup have I taken the use case for zfs send / receive too far
(?) as in, it's not meant for this kind of syncing and this often, so
there's actually nothing 'wrong'.
I'm not sure if you've taken it
On 12. mai 2013, at 15:21, Roland van Laar rol...@micite.net wrote:
I see that all the disks get the same partitions, including swap and boot?
Why is that? And do I need those 5 boot and swap partitions?
You don't need them, but there's a good chance you'll want them.
Long story, short
On 26. mai 2013, at 10:58, M. V. bored_to_deat...@yahoo.com wrote:
But recently I heard from a FreeBSD expert that I shouldn't have swap
partition for my server, and having swap partition could make my server
unstable
Any chance this could be a simple misunderstanding?
That he objected to
On 5. juli 2013, at 18:18, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote:
Is this normal in your experience?
Did you do them in that order, or did you do the smb (slow) one first?
If the slow was first, I'm thinking caching on the server could be a major
factor.
Terje
On 4. aug. 2013, at 12:54, Frank Leonhardt fra...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
The program writing the log is actually called flubnutz and it doesn't play
nice with newsyslog, reopen handles on a signal or anything else
Then you're out of luck for normal rotation. No matter if you rename the file,
or
On 8. aug. 2013, at 00:08, Frank Leonhardt fra...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
As a suggestion, what happens if you read from the drives directly? Boot in
single user and try reading a Gb or two using /bin/dd. It might eliminate or
confirm a problem with ZFS.
If not too inconvenient, it'd be very
On 13. aug. 2013, at 06:14, Shane Ambler free...@shaneware.biz wrote:
If you missed the change, 9.3 is implementing shared memory using mmap.
But still using sysvipc for some locks/mutexes, so doesn't allow you to run
sysvipc-free.
Terje
___
On 12. aug. 2013, at 19.46, Trond Endrestøl wrote:
If you start the jail manually using jail(8), then /etc/jail.conf
comes into play, whereas the lines in /etc/rc.conf is used during
automatic startup of the jails when the host is rebooted. The whole
arrangement seems unnecessary redundant,
On 13. aug. 2013, at 16:30, O. Hartmann ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
What is going wrong?
Are you unable to connect, or do you get an error message? If you do, what is
it?
Terje
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
On 16. aug. 2013, at 19:17, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
Has anyone actually done this, and if so, how?
This is wrong on so many levels, and you'll have to work around all og them.
Yes, you can use nat, but what about adress-resolution? And so on.
If it's a specific thing you
On 17. aug. 2013, at 16:37, Frank Leonhardt freebsd-...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
This is just the sort of problem Google will have when it buys Facebook :-)
Probably not. If Google were to buy Facebook, I'm confident they'd be able to
renumber their networks if they have to.
Your explanation of the
On 18. aug. 2013, at 12.20, Frank Leonhardt wrote:
I'm not sure that TLS would cause more problems than any other packets, but
as you point out, the exercise is bound to be full of pooh traps as yet
undiscovered. FTP should be interesting, for a start. But for most things,
why would
On 18. aug. 2013, at 02.43, Adam Vande More wrote:
What about SSL/TLS for example? How would the router swap the header in an
encrypted session?
Same as it would any sessions since only the payload is encrypted. What
Frank calls basic nat, most people call static nat(at least people
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.com wrote:
and while you can rewrite that on a NAT-box using an application level
gateway, you can not do that if the session is using SSL or TLS.
Complete BS.
This seems to come down to a misunderstanding in the examples drawn
On 25. sep. 2013, at 06:59, Tyler Sweet ty...@tsweet.net wrote:
I tried reinstalling the boot blocks from both
the fixit live filesystem and also mounting zroot and using the files
there in case they were different.
Disclaimer: I haven't gotten (enough) morning-coffee yet, but...
Disclaimer
On 25. sep. 2013, at 09.00, Ewald Jenisch wrote:
o) Will upgrading kernel/system using
svn co svn://svn.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/ /usr/src
bring a 9.2-RC4 installed system up to date once 9.2 final is released?
Two options:
base/stable/9 - track 9-STABLE
base/releng/9.2 - track 9.2-security
On 27. sep. 2013, at 20:20, Laurent SALIN salin.laur...@laposte.net wrote:
I've got a bad solution, use unbound on the second VPS and maybe tell
him to ask the 1rst VPS on the unusual tcp/udp port
Why is that a bad solution?
You'd cache locally, which is often considered a good thing?
On 28. sep. 2013, at 00:03, Frank Leonhardt fra...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
If I understand the way it works correctly, the resolver pulls a list of the
NS and hard-sets the port number for each to 53 (via a manifest constant) .
See libc/resolv/res_init.c. All you need to do(!) is change this to a
On 28. sep. 2013, at 15:50, Frank Leonhardt fra...@fjl.co.uk wrote:
Given that BIND can happily listen on ports other than 53 and OpenBSD allows
a port to be specified against each nameserver in resolv.conf, it does not
seem an unreasonable question to me.
Just to avoid any
On Oct 9, 2013, at 6:43 AM, yudi v yudi@gmail.com wrote:
Generally, it's recommended to let ZFS manage the whole disk if possible,
so I was wondering if the second option is better.
I will be using couple of 3TB HDDs mirrored for data and want to encrypt
them.
IIRC, there is/was a major
25 matches
Mail list logo
