Re: maximum file system size

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:26:41AM +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:45:29AM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote: > > Hi folks! > > > > What is the maximum file size in OpenBSD ? > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > -- > > The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolves

Re: maximum file system size

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 12:45:29AM -0300, Gustavo Rios wrote: > Hi folks! > > What is the maximum file size in OpenBSD ? > > Thanks a lot. > > -- > The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolves do not perform > in the circus There is this comment in /usr/include/ufs/ffs/fs.h:

maximum file system size

Hi folks! What is the maximum file size in OpenBSD ? Thanks a lot. -- The lion and the tiger may be more powerful, but the wolves do not perform in the circus

Re: File system is full after using dd

> Packages should be installing into /usr/local which should be a separate > partition from /usr. I know, in the last install I had something around 300 > packages installed and after trying to install qemu the partition ran out of > space. I could try to install the system again since I have

Re: File system is full after using dd

On 2023-04-15, Nick Holland wrote: > Partition your system. And / should be as small as you can sanely > get away with. That isn't to say it should be super-tiny. But > if you have 1GB to spare, it is probably too big. I disagree on that, around 1GB to spare on / seems pretty comfortable

Re: File system is full after using dd

>  If you had an appropriate sized root partition, perhaps 1G (default),I was >using the default partitioning before but I had to reinstall the system >because kf that: I couldn't install packages because /usr partition was full >after a week of usage. I'm new to OpenBSD and I'm still learning

Re: File system is full after using dd

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 12:49:47 -0400 Nick Holland wrote: > if you have 1GB to spare, it is probably too big. I did learn to > regret a 200MB root because OpenBSD grew a lot over around ten I learned to regret setting / to under 1 mb once upon a

Re: File system is full after using dd

On 4/15/23 10:14, Lorenzo Torres wrote: Hello, I've run the dd command to wipe the data of an SD card:dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsdb1c bs=1MAfter quite some time it crashed ^^ bzzzt. game over. saying that the / filesystem is full and even after a reboot the same

Re: File system is full after using dd

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Lorenzo Torres wrote: > Hello, I've run the dd command to wipe the data of an SD card:dd if=/dev/zero > of=/dev/rsdb1c bs=1MAfter quite some time it crashed saying that the / > filesystem is full and even after a reboot the same happens. Now I can't even

Re: File system is full after using dd

Am 15.04.2023 um 16:14 schrieb Lorenzo Torres: Hello, I've run the dd command to wipe the data of an SD card:dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsdb1c bs=1MAfter quite some time it crashed saying that the / filesystem is full and even after a reboot the same happens. Now I can't even run xorg because

Re: File system is full after using dd

Thanks, that was the issue, I'll pay more attention in the future.Lorenzo Torres (https://sagittarius-a.org)

Re: File system is full after using dd

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023, at 9:14 AM, Lorenzo Torres wrote: > Hello, I've run the dd command to wipe the data of an SD card:dd > if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsdb1c bs=1MAfter quite some time it crashed > saying that the / filesystem is full and even after a reboot the same > happens. Now I can't even run

File system is full after using dd

Hello, I've run the dd command to wipe the data of an SD card:dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/rsdb1c bs=1MAfter quite some time it crashed saying that the / filesystem is full and even after a reboot the same happens. Now I can't even run xorg because the fs is full. Any idea on why this happened? I

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 7/14/22 12:09 PM, Zé Loff wrote: On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:44:20AM +0200, Brian Durant wrote: The browser issue has returned. An open dialog window to upload a file or to open a file cannot find the downloads directory and it is impossible to access by using "recents" or "computer" in the

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:44:20AM +0200, Brian Durant wrote: > The browser issue has returned. An open dialog window to upload a file or to > open a file cannot find the downloads directory and it is impossible to > access by using "recents" or "computer" in the open dialog window. Not sure >

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

The browser issue has returned. An open dialog window to upload a file or to open a file cannot find the downloads directory and it is impossible to access by using "recents" or "computer" in the open dialog window. Not sure what is going on, but it sure is irritating.

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

to access the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no files or directories appear regardless of path. Things function normally however, with both Midori and Thunderbird. I assume that Firefox and Chromium are experiencing a permissions issue, but what causes it and how

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

, Midori and Thunderbird don't have this issue because neither of them use unveil. It would be really cool if one day at least Thunderbird did. Courtney On 7/10/22 23:46, Brian Durant wrote: I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access the file system using the "

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

Actually, there is one major difference between the two systems that I had forgotten about. While both use the Calm window manager, the system that is experiencing problems with the browser file dialogs, uses PCManFM...

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 7/11/22 17:53, Stuart Henderson wrote: > I guess your locate database was last generated when firefox was > installed but chromium was not > >> Wondering if something else is at play here... > grep unveil /usr/local/share/doc/pkg-readmes/* > > ls /etc/*/*unveil* $ grep unveil

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

> ... how to rectify it is beyond my capabilities as a new OpenBSD user. First of all, there is nothing to rectify. All was done to act like this and to serve a specific purpose. Much work and developers' efforts were poured into this, again with a specific great purpose ( hint: security

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 2022-07-11, Brian Durant wrote: > On 7/11/22 15:25, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> On 2022-07-11, Björn Gohla wrote: >>> >>> Brian Durant writes: >>> >>>> I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access >>>>

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 7/11/22 15:25, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2022-07-11, Björn Gohla wrote: >> >> Brian Durant writes: >> >>> I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access >>> the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialo

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 2022-07-11, Björn Gohla wrote: > > Brian Durant writes: > >> I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access >> the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no >> files or directories appear regardless of path. Th

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 7/11/22 14:40, Björn Gohla wrote: > > Brian Durant writes: > >> I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access >> the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no >> files or directories appea

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

Brian Durant writes: > I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access > the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no > files or directories appear regardless of path. Things function [...] This sounds like an unveil(2) issue

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

On 2022-07-11, Brian Durant wrote: > I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access > the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no > files or directories appear regardless of path. Things function normally > how

Re: Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

Perhaps you run them in sandbox mode ? Kind regards Wim Brian Durant schreef op 11 juli 2022 08:46:21 CEST: >I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access the >file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no files or >directorie

Browser access to file system on new install OpenBSD missing.

I have a problem with both Firefox and Chromium being unable to access the file system using the "open" dialog. The dialog appears, but no files or directories appear regardless of path. Things function normally however, with both Midori and Thunderbird. I assume that Firefox and

Re: Best practices mirroring large file-system hierarchies?

Per Google, most likely there's a symlink loop in the source. See mkdirat(2) (it refers to ELOOP). See also errno(2), which has: 31 EMLINK Too many links It also has 62 ELOOP Too many levels of symbolic links Your message has the text from EMLINK, but mkdirat only mentions ELOOP. That's not

Re: Best practices mirroring large file-system hierarchies?

Michael Lowery Wilson writes: > Greetings, > > My attempts at creating a local mirror of Project Gutenberg's ebooks > under OpenBSD 6.9 using openrsync following official instructions: > https://www.gutenberg.org/help/mirroring.html have been unsuccessful. > > Specifically I am using: > >

Re: Best practices mirroring large file-system hierarchies?

On 2021-06-07, Michael Lowery Wilson wrote: > Greetings, > > My attempts at creating a local mirror of Project Gutenberg's ebooks under > OpenBSD 6.9 using openrsync following official instructions: > https://www.gutenberg.org/help/mirroring.html have been unsuccessful. > > Specifically I am

Best practices mirroring large file-system hierarchies?

Greetings, My attempts at creating a local mirror of Project Gutenberg's ebooks under OpenBSD 6.9 using openrsync following official instructions: https://www.gutenberg.org/help/mirroring.html have been unsuccessful. Specifically I am using: openrsync -av --del

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

Hey, I read that message about Freeradius not being able to access /dev/null in a setup where /dev is mounted on an mfs -based filesystem.I'm running similar setup (for years now) - OpenBSD on a USB stick. EVERYTHING is mounted read-only, except /var, /tmp, /dev and /jails, which are mfs -

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

And if the FS is mounted rw, do you have the issue ? Best Regards, Strahil Nikolov На 11 юли 2020 г. 10:22:53 GMT+03:00, Vertigo Altair написа: > Hello Again, >I followed Stuart's recommendations, > >in fstab, / has read-write permissions; >also, I mounted /dev as ramdisk, ( I executed

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 2020/07/11 10:22, Vertigo Altair wrote: >   Hello Again, > I followed Stuart's recommendations, > > in fstab, / has read-write permissions; > also, I mounted /dev as ramdisk,  ( I executed "MAKEDEV all" in /dev_src > directory for once) > > vertigo# cat /etc/fstab > 5e045fec2af2ab03.b none

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

Hello Again, I followed Stuart's recommendations, in fstab, / has read-write permissions; also, I mounted /dev as ramdisk, ( I executed "MAKEDEV all" in /dev_src directory for once) vertigo# cat /etc/fstab 5e045fec2af2ab03.b none swap sw 5e045fec2af2ab03.a / ffs rw 1 1 5e045fec2af2ab03.e

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 6/27/20 10:57 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2020-06-26, Marko Cupać wrote: On 2020-06-24, Aaron Mason wrote: Auto filesystem repair is bad juju. On 2020-06-25 11:17, Stuart Henderson wrote: Nonsense. For many, the possible downsides of automatically running fsck -y are much less a

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 2020-06-26, Marko Cupać wrote: >>> On 2020-06-24, Aaron Mason wrote: >>> Auto filesystem repair is bad juju. > >> On 2020-06-25 11:17, Stuart Henderson wrote: >> Nonsense. For many, the possible downsides of automatically running >> fsck -y are much less a problem than the downsides of *not*

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 2020-06-24, Aaron Mason wrote: Auto filesystem repair is bad juju. On 2020-06-25 11:17, Stuart Henderson wrote: Nonsense. For many, the possible downsides of automatically running fsck -y are much less a problem than the downsides of *not* running it. Some time ago I wrote here on misc@

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

gt; >> +# automatic file system check fails with exit code 8. > > I have quite a few machines patched like this. > > On 2020-06-24, Aaron Mason wrote: > > Auto filesystem repair is bad juju. > > Nonsense. For many, the possible downsides of automatically runnin

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 4:24 PM Mogens Jensen > wrote: >> +# NOTE: The do_fsck() function has been patched to run 'fsck -y' if an >> +# automatic file system check fails with exit code 8. I have quite a few machines patched like this. On 2020-06-24, Aaron Mason wrote:

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:58 PM, Aaron Mason wrote: > Auto filesystem repair is bad juju. Indeed, but an unbootable network appliance thousands of miles away, is much much worse. Regards, Mogens Jensen

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

/cvs/src/etc/rc,v > retrieving revision 1.536 > diff -u -p -u -p -r1.536 rc > --- src/etc/rc 1 Apr 2019 11:39:46 - 1.536 > +++ src/etc/rc 20 Aug 2019 22:47:49 - > @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ > # $OpenBSD: rc,v 1.536 2019/04/01 11:39:46 tedu Exp $ > > +# NOTE: The d

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

/01 11:39:46 tedu Exp $ +# NOTE: The do_fsck() function has been patched to run 'fsck -y' if an +# automatic file system check fails with exit code 8. + # System startup script run by init on autoboot or after single-user. # Output and error are redirected to console by init, and the c

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 2020-06-13 12:56, Todd C. Miller wrote: > On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:12:05 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > >> On 2020-06-11 12:07, Strahil Nikolov wrote: >> > I always thought that 'sync' mount option is enough to avoid >> > corruption of the FS. Am I just "fooling" myself ? >> >> As "sync" is the

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

In Linux, the kernel can force flushing the disk cache (which also can be disabled ) via fsync() call . That feature is called 'write barrier'. As I'm not a developer, I never read that portion of the source of openBSD , so I got no idea if similar logic can be used in openBSD. Does

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

ant to use readonly file system. I know there are some projects like "resflash", but I want to do that manually. ... On startup following errors comming from /etc/rc; I think errors about /etc/motd are not so important, but are the errors coming from /etc/tty* can cause any pr

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On Sat, 13 Jun 2020 12:12:05 -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > On 2020-06-11 12:07, Strahil Nikolov wrote: > > I always thought that 'sync' mount option is enough to avoid > > corruption of the FS. Am I just "fooling" myself ? > > As "sync" is the default...yes, I think you are. Actually, by

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

nd less time writing, and often have enough on-board capacitance to complete writes after a power interruption. * experiment with softdeps. Supposedly, it helps keep the /FILE SYSTEM/ consistent. My experience is it tends to truncate files on unexpected power-downs, but in MOST cases, I'd rather have

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On 2020-06-11 23:47, Dirk Coetzee wrote: > I always thought that 'sync' mount option is enough to avoid corruption of the FS. > Am I just "fooling" myself ? > I guess it boils down to a matter of preference and business requirements. > > "slow writes" vs "no writes". It's a good point,

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

I guess it boils down to a matter of preference and business requirements. "slow writes" vs "no writes". -Original Message- From: Strahil Nikolov Sent: Friday, 12 June 2020 12:08 AM To: Dirk Coetzee ; Joe Barnett ; Vertigo Altair Cc: Misc Subject: Re: OpenBSD Rea

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

m...@openbsd.org On Behalf Of Joe >Barnett >Sent: Wednesday, 10 June 2020 8:02 AM >To: Vertigo Altair >Cc: Misc >Subject: Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System > >On 2020-06-09 00:59, Vertigo Altair wrote: >> Hi Misc, >> I have a firewall device and I'm using OpenBSD

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

:02 AM To: Vertigo Altair Cc: Misc Subject: Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System On 2020-06-09 00:59, Vertigo Altair wrote: > Hi Misc, > I have a firewall device and I'm using OpenBSD on it. There is an > electricity problem where the device runs. Therefore, I have to run > the "

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

ant to use readonly file system. I know there are some projects like "resflash", but I want to do that manually. I have hacked and slashed my way to this kind of configuration for my firewall/gateway and a few other machines -- and with what appears to be good results. Please under

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 08:59, Vertigo Altair wrote: > > Hi Misc, > I have a firewall device and I'm using OpenBSD on it. There is an > electricity problem where the device runs. Therefore, I have to run the > "fsck -y" command regularly at startup due to the electricity problem. Isn't it just

Re: OpenBSD Readonly File System

rcome this, I want to use readonly file system. > I know there are some projects like "resflash", but I want to do that > manually. The usual way to handle / is to have it RW during boot and remount it (mount -ur /) in rc.local. Use a ramdisk (MFS) for /dev. Create a directory o

OpenBSD Readonly File System

Hi Misc, I have a firewall device and I'm using OpenBSD on it. There is an electricity problem where the device runs. Therefore, I have to run the "fsck -y" command regularly at startup due to the electricity problem. To overcome this, I want to use readonly file system. I know ther

Re: automounter (amd) local file system issue

d out on the amd vols. >> >>I've tesed a lot of ways, but I just did an upgrade to -current and >>immediately "looked" at the amd mount, so even my backup scripts >>haven't run. >> >>Plus -- as a control, /v/2 has absolutely nothing on it, and it >>beha

Re: automounter (amd) local file system issue

the amd mount, so even my backup scripts >haven't run. > >Plus -- as a control, /v/2 has absolutely nothing on it, and it >behaves the same way. Not that something couldn't camp out on the >empty file system, but not much reason for something to do so. > >Thanks for looking! &

Re: automounter (amd) local file system issue

t that something couldn't camp out on the empty file system, but not much reason for something to do so. Thanks for looking! Nick. > — > Antoine > >> On 13 Jan 2020, at 06:01, Nick Holland wrote: >> >> Hiya. >> >> I'd like to use amd(8) to automatica

Re: automounter (amd) local file system issue

0%/usr/local > /dev/sd2g 4136828 64920 3865068 2%/var > amd:36583 0 0 0 100%/v > > $ ls /v/1/ > [...expected output from files and directories on that file system...] > > $ df > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used

automounter (amd) local file system issue

4136828 64920 3865068 2%/var amd:365830 0 0 100%/v $ ls /v/1/ [...expected output from files and directories on that file system...] $ df Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/sd2a 505838 83602396946

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

Hi Chris, i just committed the patch shown below; thanks for bringing up the point. Yours, Ingo CVSROOT:/cvs Module name:src Changes by: schwa...@cvs.openbsd.org2019/12/05 17:14:08 Modified files: lib/libc/sys : unveil.2 Log message: Explicitly say that

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

Hi, i like the tweak; OK to commit? While it is reasonable to expect this behaviour without the "zero or more", i see how the misunderstanding "one or more" can arise: In many situations, to grant no permissions on a given path, it is sufficient to not mention it in unveil(2) at all, so it may

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, at 18:07, Theo de Raadt wrote: > I think it is implied, if no permissions are listed. Perhaps and it may be due my inexperience with C interfaces that I didn't think to try it. I think your wording would have been enough for me to twig so I've made the patch for that

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

Chris Rawnsley wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, at 14:08, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > unveil("/", ""); > > unveil(NULL, NULL); > > Thank you. I didn't realise that was possible. > > I tried to write an update to the man page for unveil(2). Is this > accurate? Should I send it along to tech@? > >

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, at 14:08, Theo de Raadt wrote: > unveil("/", ""); > unveil(NULL, NULL); Thank you. I didn't realise that was possible. I tried to write an update to the man page for unveil(2). Is this accurate? Should I send it along to tech@? Index: lib/libc/sys/unveil.2

Re: Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

Chris Rawnsley wrote: > I applied unveil next. This went much more smoothly allowing only the > few files required for the programme to function. However, I've realised > since that I only need to access a few files at initialisation and then > I can shut off all access to the

Using unveil(2) to block the entire file system

unveil next. This went much more smoothly allowing only the few files required for the programme to function. However, I've realised since that I only need to access a few files at initialisation and then I can shut off all access to the file system. >From the man page on unveil(2): >

Re: Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

Let me guess, that /bsd link was another "security" idea from that mercury chloride .org?

Re: Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

On 2018-02-21, Nicolas Schmidt wrote: > Thanks Tim, that was right on the money! Indeed my „/bsd“ was a symbolic > link, pointing to „/bsd.mp“. Because the target path of the symlink was > absolute, when it tried to write the new kernel to „./mnt/bsd“ it of

Re: Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

2018-02-21 13:51 GMT+01:00 Nicolas Schmidt : > Thanks Tim, that was right on the money! Indeed my „/bsd“ was a symbolic > link, pointing to „/bsd.mp“. Because the target path of the symlink was > absolute, when it tried to write the new kernel to „./mnt/bsd“ it

Re: Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

ying to upgrade to 6.2. >> >> After choosing to skip verification and continue the upgrade process, I >> now immediately get the following error: >> >>Installing bsd0% | >>id 0 on /: file system full >> >>/: write failed, file sy

Re: Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

0% | > id 0 on /: file system full > > /: write failed, file system full > ftp: Writing -: No space left on device > > Going to a shell, "df" reveals > > Filesystem512-blocks UsedAvail CapacityMounted &g

Upgrade 6.1->6.2 fails with "id 0 on/: file system full"

Hey, it's me again, still trying to upgrade to 6.2. After choosing to skip verification and continue the upgrade process, I now immediately get the following error: Installing bsd 0% | id 0 on /: file system full /: write failed, file system full ftp

Re: raid and crypto file system

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:41:22 -0300 "x9p" wrote: > > On 2017-09-20, Friedrich Locke wrote: > >> My question is: > >> > >> I would like to use hardware raid disks with disk encryption. Is that > >> possible ? Since the disk raid appears

Re: raid and crypto file system

> On 2017-09-20, Friedrich Locke wrote: >> My question is: >> >> I would like to use hardware raid disks with disk encryption. Is that >> possible ? Since the disk raid appears transparently to the OS. >> >> Is that possible ? > > Yes. > > Not with 6.1, right?

Re: raid and crypto file system

On 2017-09-20, Friedrich Locke wrote: > My question is: > > I would like to use hardware raid disks with disk encryption. Is that > possible ? Since the disk raid appears transparently to the OS. > > Is that possible ? Yes.

raid and crypto file system

Hi folks, In the FAQ page, it is stated: Much like RAID, full disk encryption in OpenBSD is handled by the softraid(4) subsystem and bioctl(8) command. This section covers installing OpenBSD to a single encrypted disk, and is a

SOLVED! System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System: SOLVED!

Thank you guys! I solved in this way: boot boot -s # mount -uw / # fsck Original Message Subject: System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System From:Max Power open...@cpnetserver.net Date:Thu, June 4, 2015 10:52 pm To: misc

Re: SOLVED! System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System: SOLVED!

disks configured? /Alexander Subject: System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System From:Max Power open...@cpnetserver.net Date:Thu, June 4, 2015 10:52 pm To: misc@openbsd.org -- Last night I turned off

Re: System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System

Max Power wrotes: Last night I turned off the server, all ok. This morning I turned on the server (OpenBSD 5.7 amd64) and the system loads read-only file system... I can not even settle with fsck (just because the file system is read-only). A tip, thanks. fsck -nf should help you to debug

System BOOT (and load) Read-Only File System

Last night I turned off the server, all ok. This morning I turned on the server (OpenBSD 5.7 amd64) and the system loads read-only file system... I can not even settle with fsck (just because the file system is read-only). A tip, thanks.

large file system

Is there anyone using openbsd for large file systems ? For a large file system, nowadays, i mean 16 TB! Thanks on advance.

Re: large file system

- Original Message - | Is there anyone using openbsd for large file systems ? | For a large file system, nowadays, i mean 16 TB! | | Thanks on advance. | | You do not want to have a file system so large when using UFS. You would use a lot of memory and the file system check would

Re: file system and memory limitation

On 16/03/2014 4:24 AM, Friedrich Locke wrote: Hi folks, i wonder what are the limitations on main memory and file system sizes ! Thanks a lot. gustavo. How long is a piece of string?

file system and memory limitation

Hi folks, i wonder what are the limitations on main memory and file system sizes ! Thanks a lot. gustavo.

Re: file system and memory limitation

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 15:24, Friedrich Locke wrote: Hi folks, i wonder what are the limitations on main memory and file system sizes ! They're big.

Re: dump(8): unify grammar of both 'file system(s)' 'filesystem(s)'

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 08:34:51PM +0100, Craig R. Skinner wrote: The existing grammar is erratic: $ fgrep filesystem dump.8 | wc -l 15 $ fgrep 'file system' dump.8 | wc -l 6 erratic, you say? $ grep -i filesystem restore.8 | wc -l 0 $ grep -i file

dump(8): unify grammar of both 'file system(s)' 'filesystem(s)'

The existing grammar is erratic: $ fgrep filesystem dump.8 | wc -l 15 $ fgrep 'file system' dump.8 | wc -l 6 Uniformly concatenate both words into one: Index: dump.8 === RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/dump/dump.8,v

Soekris net5501: file system repeatedly broken on CF-card

Hello misc, until some weeks ago OpenBSD 5.2 had been running like a charm on my net5501. Then I came home to ddb and the file system was totaly broken (fsck segfaulting). As the 1GB CF card was quite old and it was time for 5.3 anyway I bought a Kingston 16GB Ultimate 266X. After some days I

Re: Versioning file system?

ZFS or UFS snapshots, FreeBSD. On 29 Apr 2013, at 19:54, Xianwen Chen xianwen.c...@gmail.com wrote: Hi fellas, I'm looking for a versioning file system or a comparative implementation. The idea is that I want to store file changes for some periods of time. I also want to be able

Versioning file system?

Hi fellas, I'm looking for a versioning file system or a comparative implementation. The idea is that I want to store file changes for some periods of time. I also want to be able to delete earliest few periods' file changes when the harddisk is almost full. I couldn't find information

Re: Versioning file system?

2013/4/29 Xianwen Chen xianwen.c...@gmail.com Hi fellas, I'm looking for a versioning file system or a comparative implementation. The idea is that I want to store file changes for some periods of time. I also want to be able to delete earliest few periods' file changes when the harddisk

Re: Versioning file system?

skrev Rodrigo Mosconi: CVS? RCS? Thank you. I believe CVS will work for my purpose!

Re: Versioning file system?

On Apr 29, 2013, at 5:54 PM, Xianwen Chen xianwen.c...@gmail.com wrote: Hi fellas, I'm looking for a versioning file system or a comparative implementation. The idea is that I want to store file changes for some periods of time. I also want to be able to delete earliest few periods' file

Re: Versioning file system?

On Mon, 29 Apr 2013, [iso-8859-1] Zé Loff wrote: Not sure, but it sounds like you are looking for something like this: http://blog.interlinked.org/tutorials/rsync_time_machine.html Much more useful than a time machine lookalike: rsnapshot http://www.rsnapshot.org/ No fancy gui (who needs

Re: Versioning file system?

skrev Zé Loff: Not sure, but it sounds like you are looking for something like this: http://blog.interlinked.org/tutorials/rsync_time_machine.html Using rsync to create snapshots is amazing. I didn't know that I could do this. Thank you very much!

Re: Versioning file system?

skrev L. V. Lammert Much more useful than a time machine lookalike: rsnapshot http://www.rsnapshot.org/ No fancy gui (who needs it?), .. configurage for as may versions as you like - hourly, daily, weekly, yearly, and keep each as long as you wish. The key is using hardlinks on the target

  1   2   3   >