I am currently experimenting with ccd(4) and although it appears to
work, I am uncomfortable with one point.
I have configured 2 partitions as a JBOD (interleave 0). However, the
first of these partitions is partition 'a' of one disk. So the first
effect I had was that ccd0 appeared to have
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
I read through the mailing list archives and found a thread explaining that
the disklabel is stored around the beginning of partition 'a' and that one
should allocate a small partition 'a' which should not be made part of the
JBOD.
I think you misread. It's enough to make
Otto Moerbeek wrote:
How are we supposed to help if you omit all relevant info? dmesg,
disklabels, fdisk info...
A good start would be to read my post, all the information is there.
Except for dmesg, which is not useful in this case.
-pu
christian widmer wrote:
man ccd:
Note that the `raw' partitions of the disks should not be combined. Each
component partition should be offset at least one cylinder from the beginning
of the component disk.
What is a raw partition in that case? In the examples I found, the
members of the
List,
If I have a harddisk with one OBSD slice and one other slice (say
Linux), can I convert that second slice to OBSD A6 and use it from the
same OBSD installation?
If so, what will be the disklabel numbering?
Regards,
-pu
Nick Holland wrote:
I think you were confusing UPGRADE and UPDATE there someplace.
No, I updated 3.9-release to 3.9-stable.
Remove (or don't install) Sendmail... Boom, your daily reports are
now non-functional. There are other ways you could get the same info,
but none of them quite as
Joachim Schipper wrote:
For instance, OpenBSD 4.0 introduced a warning for large stacks, and 4.0
kernels are compiled with this option. Compiling a pre-4.0 -current on
3.9 is thus impossible.
That's indeed a good example. While there's probably a way around it by
upgrading in several steps,
Nick Holland wrote:
UpGRADING (changing functionality, changing version numbers) from source
is HARD. Having thousands of people thinking they should be able to
build a new version from some arbitrary old version by source is a
leading cause of developer hair loss, and helping those people
Hi,
I expected that this question had come up many times before but I didn't
find anything in the archives, so here I go.
My understanding is that OpenBSD version updates can only be done with
binaries. Likewise, for additional application installation, packages
i.e. binaries are favored
Jack J. Woehr wrote:
The real problem is that when outsiders stumble into our newsgroups,
we shriek, Ni! Ni! and
demand another shrubbery. Maybe we should just chill out a bit.
True. I'm currently evaluating OpenBSD and I am trying to understand the
mindset of OpenBSD users by reading the
10 matches
Mail list logo
