On 8/5/09, leon zadorin leonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/5/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
I don't have time now to test your scenario. But I'm pretty sure your
test will fail the moment non-default fragment or blocksizes are used
in such a way that the first alternate superblock does
On 8/5/09, leon zadorin leonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
In the examples of *corrupted* superblocks though there appears not to
be much difference -- i.e. disk sectors hosting the starting
superblock being corrupted vs disk sectors hosting disklabel being
corrupted: both are irrecoverable
On 8/5/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
The big difference is that a disklabel is relatively easy to
recover (the system even makes backups for your automatically). The
label is in a fixed spot, and there is a tool (disklabel(8)) to
rewrite it.
Automatic backup sounds nice. Although I
On 8/5/09, leon zadorin leonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/5/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
The big difference is that a disklabel is relatively easy to
recover (the system even makes backups for your automatically). The
label is in a fixed spot, and there is a tool (disklabel(8
On 8/4/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:26:08PM +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
That's all I am saying. Feel free to ignore or make blah blah blah
noises :-)
So now we can, perhaps, get back (if at all) to the man pages and what
they are implying wrt original
On 8/5/09, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 12:17 PM, leon zadorinleonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps, *indeed*, I am not looking in *all* of the right places and
so in the meantime (as I will be looking more into the rest of the
fsck_ffs code when I get more
On 8/5/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 02:17:14AM +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
On 8/4/09, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:26:08PM +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
That's all I am saying. Feel free to ignore or make blah blah blah
On 7/29/09, Rod Whitworth glis...@witworx.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:44:55 +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
Heaps of crap.
--
:-) :-) :-) so many people who are so ready to express their logical
and useful comments.
You should have read http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html
where it says:Do
On 7/29/09, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 04:01:53PM +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
On 7/29/09, Rod Whitworth glis...@witworx.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:44:55 +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
Heaps of crap.
--
:-) :-) :-) so many people who are so
On 7/29/09, Alexander Hall ha...@openbsd.org wrote:
ps people do need to relax and take it easy indeed (emotionally that is)
:-)
People dislike having to dig through tons of crap like this in their
inbox. You are just fucking annoying and if you keep this up you should
not expect ever
On 7/29/09, Atle Kristensen a...@bluezone.no wrote:
I am, at this stage of conversation (if one can call it such), noting
the difference (in my opinion) between implementation and definition
There is ALWAYS a difference while dealing with two languages:
code - specification/documentation.
On 7/29/09, leon zadorin leonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/09, Atle Kristensen a...@bluezone.no wrote:
I am, at this stage of conversation (if one can call it such), noting
the difference (in my opinion) between implementation and definition
There is ALWAYS a difference while dealing
On 7/28/09, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
Perhaps, but I am not going to enter any 'p*issing contests' of who's
got whose name where (besides, I am not implying to be an uber-coder,
but I do reserve the right to express my opinion wrt matter at hand).
I would like to retain the
On 7/28/09, leon zadorin leonleo...@gmail.com wrote:
How you choose to represent the behavior's definition is irrelevant
(code or words, on paper or on screen).
I am, at this stage of conversation (if one can call it such), noting
the difference (in my opinion) between implementation
On 7/27/09, Kenneth R Westerback kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 04:44:45AM +1100, leon zadorin wrote:
Man page for mount_vnd states:
The `c' partition of a vnd image should not be used. When a superblock
becomes damaged, fsck_ffs(8) needs information contained
On 7/27/09, Kenneth R Westerback kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:11:21AM +1000, leon zadorin wrote:
On 7/27/09, Kenneth R Westerback kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 04:44:45AM +1100, leon zadorin wrote:
Man page for mount_vnd states:
The `c
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
I'd say. Anywhere does it say this? My understanding was that 'c'
partition depicts the entire device. If this is correct, than it's not
even close to describing it as 'freely changing' it's semantics as per
kernel's mood. Artistic
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Sounds a little nonsensical to me.
1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of
conceptual 'whole disk' (esp. if such represents the entire *physical*
disk as per man pages) to be less than other partitions -- so
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Sounds a little nonsensical to me.
1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of
conceptual 'whole disk' (esp. if such represents the entire *physical*
disk
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
On 7/27/09, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote:
Sounds a little nonsensical to me.
1) for example, it would make no sense to 'shrink' the size of
conceptual
On 7/27/09, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
:-) :-) :-) relax, take a pill -- no need to get emotional.
besides I don't think we are seeing things that much differently. I
didn't say you were making mistakes, but if you make krap-inviting
statements like the source code *defines*
Hi,
Man pages for vnconfig state that one of the useful things for vnd
devices (not svnd ones) is to make them be used for swap.
Given that vnconfig associates a vnd device with a regular file -- the
above comments reduce to allowing one to use regular file as a swap
space... only... why would
Man page for mount_vnd states:
The `c' partition of a vnd image should not be used. When a superblock
becomes damaged, fsck_ffs(8) needs information contained in the disklabel
to determine the location of alternate superblocks. This information is
not available when directly
23 matches
Mail list logo
