Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

Nick Holland wrote: > At this point, I think it is fair to say i386 has entered "legacy" > state. I think it would be fair to say that the most active development > is taking place on the amd64 platform and being pushed out to others. I > think that's a better reason than performance. Wasn't

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:24:32PM +0200, Michael Hekeler wrote: > > The difference in RAM usage on boot is something around a dozen > > megabytes. You won't notice this. > > I think so, too > > > > The only good reason to run i386 is if your system doesn't support > > amd64. > > ++

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

> The difference in RAM usage on boot is something around a dozen > megabytes. You won't notice this. I think so, too > The only good reason to run i386 is if your system doesn't support > amd64. ++

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

support amd64. On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Michael Hekeler <mich...@hekeler.com> wrote: > > Regarding OS and ports performance, does it make sense to use i386 > > rather than amd64 ? > > What is the meaning of "OS and ports performance"? > Do you have conc

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

> Regarding OS and ports performance, does it make sense to use i386 > rather than amd64 ? What is the meaning of "OS and ports performance"? Do you have concerns about the memory usage? Maybe we can say: AMD64 installs will always use more RAM than i386, so if you are low on

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

On 09/13/17 09:42, Joel Carnat wrote: > Hi, > > My Cloud instances are always small (1 ou 2 vCPU, far less than 4GB of > RAM). > > From what I saw, all the ports I need are available in i386 and amd64. > Every Cloud provider I checked are using KVM hypervisor. >

Re: i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

ou 2 vCPU, far less than 4GB of > RAM). > > From what I saw, all the ports I need are available in i386 and amd64. > Every Cloud provider I checked are using KVM hypervisor. > > Regarding OS and ports performance, does it make sense to use i386 rather > than amd64 ? > Or is

i386 or amd64 from small Cloud instance ?

Hi, My Cloud instances are always small (1 ou 2 vCPU, far less than 4GB of RAM). From what I saw, all the ports I need are available in i386 and amd64. Every Cloud provider I checked are using KVM hypervisor. Regarding OS and ports performance, does it make sense to use i386 rather than

Fwd: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

OpenBSD's tftpd. > Same logic does not apply to in.tftpd or atftpd. I had copied the OpenBSD "pxeboot" (amd64 and i386, they differ a bit) to my Linux box. As you can see in the second line, the requested filename "boot.conf" has no additional IP address or MAC to filter on: &

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

s chmod g+w /tmp/tftpd_rewrite.sock > $ doas tftpd -v -r /tmp/tftpd_rewrite.sock /home/vm > > $ tftp 127.0.0.1 > tftp> get /etc/boot.conf > Received 38 bytes in 0.0 seconds > > $ syslogc daemon | tail -n1 > Jan 29 01:51:49 t440s tftpd[626]: 127.0.0.1: read request for '/etc/boo

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

> > Isn't better to use rewrite/file remapping instead of hacking pxeboot? > > If an i386 machine would request /etc/boot.conf via tftp you could rewrite > > it to (based on fact you know that that machine is i386 - during > > provisioning) > > /etc/i386/boot.conf. For the client I suppose it

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 01:17:48AM +0200, li...@wrant.com wrote: > Sample excerpts from host specific DHCP server config, for i386 and amd64: > > next-server 10.0.0.32; > filename "auto_upgrade"; > > next-server 10.0.0.64; > filena

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

Sat, 28 Jan 2017 00:17:40 +0100 Sven-Volker Nowarra <peb.nowa...@bluewin.ch> > I am netbooting many systems, and last recently stepped on the issue, that I > had an amd64 and an i386 client in the same network. I wanted to boot them > into a "full" Op

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

> Am 28.01.2017 um 14:56 schrieb Jiri B <ji...@devio.us>: > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:17:40AM +0100, Sven-Volker Nowarra wrote: >> I am netbooting many systems, and last recently stepped on the issue, that I >> had an amd64 and an i386 client in the same net

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 06:41:34PM +0100, Sven-Volker Nowarra wrote: > > Isn't better to use rewrite/file remapping instead of hacking pxeboot? > > If an i386 machine would request /etc/boot.conf via tftp you could rewrite > > it to (based on fact you know that that machine is i386 - during > >

Re: netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 12:17:40AM +0100, Sven-Volker Nowarra wrote: > I am netbooting many systems, and last recently stepped on the issue, that I > had an amd64 and an i386 client in the same network. I wanted to boot them > into a "full" OpenBSD (not ramdisk kernel). T

netbooting OpenBSD (6.0) i386 and amd64 clients from one server

I am netbooting many systems, and last recently stepped on the issue, that I had an amd64 and an i386 client in the same network. I wanted to boot them into a "full" OpenBSD (not ramdisk kernel). That is not possible with the default installation, cause pxeboot can not distingui

Re: i386 or amd64?

Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:53:43 +0300 Mihai Popescu > Since the answer is done, I will dare to ask something in this thread: > are there some hints in choosing over Intel or AMD processors? > > I see many users do not comment that and I respect it. Sometimes, you > can see phrases in

Re: i386 or amd64?

Since the answer is done, I will dare to ask something in this thread: are there some hints in choosing over Intel or AMD processors? I see many users do not comment that and I respect it. Sometimes, you can see phrases in threads like "happy to run AMD again", etc. Is there a preference over one

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 9/21/16 2:15 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: On 2016-09-20, Jeff Ross <jr...@openvistas.net> wrote: Subject: i386 or amd64? If the hardware supports it, run amd64. If I have 8GB, I for sure want to use it all. You will need amd64 for that. But even if you have less memory, the

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 2016-09-20, Jeff Ross <jr...@openvistas.net> wrote: > Subject: i386 or amd64? If the hardware supports it, run amd64. > If I have 8GB, I for sure want to use it all. You will need amd64 for that. But even if you have less memory, the larger address space is beneficial.

Re: i386 or amd64?

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Jeff Ross wrote: > I've just rented a server with 8GB of ram from m5hosting (based in large > part from the many recommendations I read while searching misc@ on > marc.info). Now the question is: i386 which is what I've always run on my 2 >

Re: i386 or amd64?

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:36:40PM -0700, Mike Larkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:38:50PM -0600, Jeff Ross wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've had a server with corenetworks for quite a few years now but after > > changes at corenetworks (their recent name change after acquisition by > >

Re: i386 or amd64?

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 05:38:50PM -0600, Jeff Ross wrote: > Hi all, > > I've had a server with corenetworks for quite a few years now but after > changes at corenetworks (their recent name change after acquisition by > another company, no current servers available, no communication about the >

Re: i386 or amd64?

Tue, 20 Sep 2016 17:38:50 -0600 Jeff Ross [...] > I have a little less than 2 weeks to make the transition so not a lot of > time for install and try. > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions--dmesgs supplied once I get access. Hi Jeff, Go amd64 as others advised, X3220

Re: i386 or amd64?

Very shortcutted the PAE is for 32bits to allow more RAM like 64bits processors. Search the math about those RAM numbers regarding CPU architecture. Some (very old) 32 bits processors may lack the NX bit. 64 bits all have the NX bit. You should use amd64. As a side note, in the processor you've

Re: i386 or amd64?

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Jeff Ross wrote: > How can I tell if the Xeon 3220 > processor has the PAE NX bit? I see nothing in the tech sheet about PAE NX. > http://ark.intel.com/products/28034/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X3220-8M-Cache-2_40-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB Look at the very bottom: it says ``Execute Disable

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 09/20/16 19:38, Jeff Ross wrote: Hi all, I've had a server with corenetworks for quite a few years now but after changes at corenetworks (their recent name change after acquisition by another company, no current servers available, no communication about the change of ownership with existing

i386 or amd64?

Hi all, I've had a server with corenetworks for quite a few years now but after changes at corenetworks (their recent name change after acquisition by another company, no current servers available, no communication about the change of ownership with existing customers and an email exchange

i386 vs. amd64 OpenSSL performance

This came up on soekris-tech, but since I have the figures I might as well post them here, too. If you do lots of crypto by way of OpenSSL's libcrypto, a number of popular algorithms (AES, SHA256, RSA, DSA, ECDSA, ECDH) are significantly faster in amd64 mode than in i386 mode on the same

Re: i386 or amd64?

was to use the i386 build for a slight perfomance and stability benefit. Is that still the case? What are the advantages and shortcomings of amd64? I don't know why people still bother with anything different than i386. I use amd64 in everything that supports it, without a single problem related

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 2011-08-06, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2011-08-05, System Administrator wrote: Looking to build a firewall for a fairly busy (25+mb) site. Hardware is Dell PE2850, 2 Xeon 64-bit CPUs, 4GB RAM, 6 em(4) interfaces. Software is primarily pf(4) and relayd(8). Not so long ago the

i386 or amd64?

Looking to build a firewall for a fairly busy (25+mb) site. Hardware is Dell PE2850, 2 Xeon 64-bit CPUs, 4GB RAM, 6 em(4) interfaces. Software is primarily pf(4) and relayd(8). Not so long ago the recommendation was to use the i386 build for a slight perfomance and stability benefit. Is that

Re: i386 or amd64?

2011/8/5 System Administrator ad...@bitwise.net Looking to build a firewall for a fairly busy (25+mb) site. Hardware is Dell PE2850, 2 Xeon 64-bit CPUs, 4GB RAM, 6 em(4) interfaces. Software is primarily pf(4) and relayd(8). Not so long ago the recommendation was to use the i386 build for a

Re: i386 or amd64?

If I'm not mistaken, i386 does not support more that 3GB of memory. amd64 bumped this number recently and machines with big amount of RAM available can use all its memory. Luis. On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM, System Administrator ad...@bitwise.net wrote: Looking to build a firewall for a

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 2011-08-05, System Administrator ad...@bitwise.net wrote: Looking to build a firewall for a fairly busy (25+mb) site. Hardware is Dell PE2850, 2 Xeon 64-bit CPUs, 4GB RAM, 6 em(4) interfaces. Software is primarily pf(4) and relayd(8). Not so long ago the recommendation was to use the

Re: i386 or amd64?

On 08/05/11 17:43, System Administrator wrote: Looking to build a firewall for a fairly busy (25+mb) site. Hardware is Dell PE2850, 2 Xeon 64-bit CPUs, 4GB RAM, 6 em(4) interfaces. Software is primarily pf(4) and relayd(8). Not so long ago the recommendation was to use the i386 build for a

Re: i386 or amd64?

the case that amd64 vs. i386 mattered for a modest needsbandwidth, over-powered system like yours. Remember: you can't drive faster than the guy ahead of you. There is zero REAL benefit in tuning and balancing and blue-printing your engine when that's not your limiting factor. Sure, you may want

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: B B B B Going through /etc manually or by sysmerge is tedious. I wish we had some kind of super-black-magic-mind-reading-hyper-sysmerge tool...

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

I need(ed) one of my configured/development machines to go from i386 to amd64. Once I needed one of my old machines to go from i386 to sparc and I experienced similar problems.

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

. I wish we had some kind of super-black-magic-mind-reading-hyper-sysmerge tool... Dear Abel, That was unnecessary. It was as sysmerge(8) is doing great job. My point was that migrating from 4.8/i386 to 4.8/amd64 requires virtually no changes to main /etc. Virtually maybe. Practically

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

* Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com [110407 02:51]: I ran the upgrade from CD. I want to be sure that packages are OK. Is pkg_add -u sufficient? (It looks like nothing changed.) Should I try pkg_add -u -D update or something else? I did i386-amd64 upgrade once, it went smoothly. I

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

, Steven R. Gerber wrote: I ran the upgrade from CD. from i386 to amd64? No. Don't do this. Boot off the CD again, and this time pick install. You can save your /home directory and config files. amd64 and i386, for OpenBSD, are totally different platforms. You can't upgrade from one platform

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

through /etc manually or by sysmerge is tedious. I wish we had some kind of super-black-magic-mind-reading-hyper-sysmerge tool... Dear Abel, That was unnecessary. It was as sysmerge(8) is doing great job. My point was that migrating from 4.8/i386 to 4.8/amd64 requires virtually

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 4/7/2011 12:30 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: The partitions/mounts problem is far more disconcerting. What if I need to save data to a striped array to do the migration? Recreating/resetting those parameters is

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: That's the nature of OpenBSD, they try to keep things as machine independent as they can. It's pretty amazing, really. No, that's not amazing. That, my friend, is fucking awesome. -- chs

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 2011-04-07 0:57:10 Amit Kulkarni amitkulz () gmail ! com wrote: Is this in the FAQ? Never thought I would read such a question. I will be sure to put it in the IFAQ for 5.0. Along with where is the sea-urchin flavored frozen yogurt? and do these gloves make my butt look big? -- Ed

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: The partitions/mounts problem is far more disconcerting. What if I need to save data to a striped array to do the migration? Recreating/resetting those parameters is dangerous. How can I create and use a site

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 04/07/2011 01:02 PM, Steven R. Gerber wrote: On 4/7/2011 12:30 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: The partitions/mounts problem is far more disconcerting. What if I need to save data to a striped array to do the

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 07/04/11 01:46, Steven R. Gerber wrote: I ran the upgrade from CD. I want to be sure that packages are OK. Is pkg_add -u sufficient? (It looks like nothing changed.) Should I try pkg_add -u -D update or something else? Thanks, Steven Save your self from trouble. Backup /etc, /root, /home

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 4/7/2011 1:37 PM, Nick Holland wrote: On 04/07/2011 01:02 PM, Steven R. Gerber wrote: On 4/7/2011 12:30 PM, Ted Unangst wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: The partitions/mounts problem is far more disconcerting. What if I need to

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 04/07/2011 02:08 PM, Steven R. Gerber wrote: Nick, Thanks for the clue, but I still don't get it (me dummy?). ** NOTE for re-installers: The new installer will not clear your old disklabel if you chose (C)ustom Layout, but you will need to

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 4/7/2011 3:39 PM, Nick Holland wrote: On 04/07/2011 02:08 PM, Steven R. Gerber wrote: Nick, Thanks for the clue, but I still don't get it (me dummy?). ** NOTE for re-installers: The new installer will not clear your old disklabel if you

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:30 AM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Steven R. Gerber sger...@gerber-systems.com wrote: The partitions/mounts problem is far more disconcerting. What if I need to save data to a striped array to do the migration?

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 2011-04-07 0:57:10 Amit Kulkarni amitkulz () gmail ! com wrote: Is this in the FAQ? Never thought I would read such a question. I will be sure to put it in the IFAQ for 5.0. Along with where is the sea-urchin flavored frozen yogurt? and do these gloves make my butt look big? Can't

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Amit Kulkarni amitk...@gmail.com wrote: On 2011-04-07 0:57:10 Amit Kulkarni amitkulz () gmail ! com wrote: Is this in the FAQ? Never thought I would read such a question. I will be sure to put it in the IFAQ for 5.0. B Along with where is the sea-urchin

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

The only thing you should be trying to save are data containing directories -- /home and maybe some other special directories, like my /u1 example here. A possible exception to his might be /var; I could see you may have websites or mail and didn't think far enough ahead to put those in

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Amit Kulkarni amitk...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, seriously some parts of this discussion should be incorporated in the FAQ. I will look into this again and again from a newbie's eye (I am not that far off from a newbie anyway) and see if I can give some feedback. I

Upgrade i386 to amd64

I ran the upgrade from CD. I want to be sure that packages are OK. Is pkg_add -u sufficient? (It looks like nothing changed.) Should I try pkg_add -u -D update or something else? Thanks, Steven

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 04/06/11 18:46, Steven R. Gerber wrote: I ran the upgrade from CD. from i386 to amd64? No. Don't do this. Boot off the CD again, and this time pick install. You can save your /home directory and config files. amd64 and i386, for OpenBSD, are totally different platforms. You can't upgrade

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

Is this in the FAQ? Never thought I would read such a question. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: On 04/06/11 18:46, Steven R. Gerber wrote: I ran the upgrade from CD. from i386 to amd64? No. Don't do this. Boot off the CD again, and this time

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

On 4/6/2011 8:57 PM, Amit Kulkarni wrote: Is this in the FAQ? Never thought I would read such a question. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Nick Holland n...@holland-consulting.net wrote: On 04/06/11 18:46, Steven R. Gerber wrote: I ran the upgrade from CD. from i386 to amd64? No. Don't

Re: Upgrade i386 to amd64

... Dear Abel, That was unnecessary. My point was that migrating from 4.8/i386 to 4.8/amd64 requires virtually no changes to main /etc. But, a fresh install (not an upgrade) makes me (re)verify all of /etc. The upgrade FAQ 4.7 - 4.8 was fairly clear about what parts of /etc were touched and needed

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 07:09:03 +0200 roberth rob...@openbsd.pap.st wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner. (...) the key words were every time this happens ... if you find an error

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote: That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is any integrity check which failure is OK. It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false sense of integrity/security. It really is

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

* Scott McEachern sc...@blackstaff.ca [2010-10-16 05:31]: I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or more days, and I was just wondering why that is? plenty of possibilities. theo (or todd when it comes to X) was gone or had better stuff to do a problem with copying snaps

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

...@tinono.com)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:58:49PM +: Hi, The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains about this when trying to upgrade. This is with the snapshots of Oct. 14th With snapshots

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Frank Bax wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote: That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is any integrity check which failure is OK. It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false sense of

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

hmm, on Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 07:09:03AM +0200, roberth said that On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner. (...) the key words were every time this happens ... if you find an error or

i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Hi, The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains about this when trying to upgrade. This is with the snapshots of Oct. 14th Thanks, -jc

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

(SHA256) xfont48.tgz: FAILED (SHA256) xserv48.tgz: FAILED (SHA256) xshare48.tgz: FAILED JC Choisy(tin...@tinono.com)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:58:49PM +: Hi, The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

I can also confirm this on 2 different US ftp servers. JC Choisy(tin...@tinono.com)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:58:49PM +: Hi, The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains about this when trying

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

(SHA256) xfont48.tgz: FAILED (SHA256) xserv48.tgz: FAILED (SHA256) xshare48.tgz: FAILED JC Choisy(tin...@tinono.com)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 08:58:49PM +: Hi, The kernel in latest i386 and amd64 snapshots has a sha256 checksum that doesn't match what's listed in the SHA256 file. bsd.rd complains

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Theo de Raadt deraadt at cvs.openbsd.org writes: With snapshots, this will happen from time to time. If people start not understanding why the install media does this check, and that failure is OK, then I will remove the code on the install media. Adjust your expectations. A hash failure

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system, better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be. That being out of the way, you got me wondering what good is any integrity check which failure

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 01:08:25AM +, JC Choisy wrote: Theo de Raadt deraadt at cvs.openbsd.org writes: With snapshots, this will happen from time to time. If people start not understanding why the install media does this check, and that failure is OK, then I will remove the code on

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Okey dokey...now I know. Hmmm...I've followed snaps for years and always check sums...and I can't remember a time that they failed. Well no worries...I'll roll with it, thanks for the reality check. Theo de Raadt(dera...@cvs.openbsd.org)@Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:29:52PM -0600: Snipped...

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

Marco Peereboom slash at peereboom.us writes: It is only meant to help uptight people having some sort of false sense of integrity/security. It really is for release only because snapshots are a moving target. In my opinion the whole check is a giant waste of time because every damn time

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On 10/15/10 20:29, Theo de Raadt wrote: Another alternative is that I only do snapshot builds about every 2 weeks. How's that idea? A little off-topic, but now's as good a time as any to ask: I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or more days, and I was just

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system, better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be. That being out of

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: OpenBSD-current is most of the times an excellent quality system, better and more reliable than most other 'stable' systems. This may alter one's ability to keep his expectations where they should be. That being out of

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

I sometimes see the snaps (or X) haven't been built for a few or more days, and I was just wondering why that is? The person who does builds has a life. Is the build automated, or manually run? The builds are not done automated. Automated build structures don't work. The tree does not

Re: i386 and amd64 snapshots - kernel SHA256 mismatch

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 21:46:41 -0700 patrick keshishian pkesh...@gmail.com wrote: as this, where -- the mortal is accused to be a whiner. (...) the key words were every time this happens ... if you find an error or something strange, most likely you aren't the first to have encountered it.

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On 6/06/2010, at 1:27 PM, Uwe Dippel wrote: Philip Guenther guenther at gmail.com writes: You now have and now it seems the core discussion is just about whether (or where) an additional rm -rf /usr/obj/* should be added to help people that know enough to set up the source tree for

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On Jun 05 12:25:03, Uwe Dippel wrote: Philip Guenther guenther at gmail.com writes: Please point to the part of the Upgrade Guide which talks about building from source, untarring the src tar file, or applying errata. I can't seem to find any such reference, but I'm sure it's in there

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

patrick keshishian wrote: On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jacob Meuser jake...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: I'm still curious how anything left in /usr/obj can be anything but a possible problem after updating system binaries and sources to a new release. especially for people who are just

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

Jacob Meuser wrote: ... On 5/06/2010, at 7:31 AM, Nick Holland wrote: a patch to the upgrade guide would be wrong. The problem is the patching process (a special case of the userland build process) assumes a clean obj dir. This has nothing to do with upgrades. If you try to rebuild the same

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR ARE DOING, INSTALL A NEW SNAPSHOT Theo de Raadt wrote: Miod, Dale, Kurt, Kettenis and I am quite often the first people to deal with bumping systems forward over bumps. Some bumps are so difficult that after they are done the rest of us jump over them using

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On 5/06/2010, at 5:51 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jacob Meuser jake...@sdf.lonestar.org wrote: I'm still curious how anything left in /usr/obj can be anything but a possible problem after updating system binaries and sources to a new release. especially for

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On Jun 04 16:22:35, Uwe Dippel wrote: Jacob Meuser jakemsr at sdf.lonestar.org writes: oh good grief. you had a dirty /usr/obj. just look at the pfctl snippet of the log you posted. do you see pfctl being built? do you see pfctl being installed from /usr/obj? Oh, yes. So the

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 06:48:18PM +1200, Richard Toohey wrote: But I don't understand what he's doing differently to me. A new release is out, you want to upgrade from the previous release to the new one, and then you want to apply the errata patches. Look, there are several flaws to the way

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On 5/06/2010, at 7:45 PM, Jan Stary wrote: On Jun 04 16:22:35, Uwe Dippel wrote: Jacob Meuser jakemsr at sdf.lonestar.org writes: oh good grief. you had a dirty /usr/obj. just look at the pfctl snippet of the log you posted. do you see pfctl being built? do you see pfctl being installed

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 01:49:46AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: Jacob Meuser wrote: ... On 5/06/2010, at 7:31 AM, Nick Holland wrote: a patch to the upgrade guide would be wrong. The problem is the patching process (a special case of the userland build process) assumes a clean obj dir.

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On 5/06/2010, at 8:14 PM, Marc Espie wrote: On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 06:48:18PM +1200, Richard Toohey wrote: But I don't understand what he's doing differently to me. A new release is out, you want to upgrade from the previous release to the new one, and then you want to apply the errata

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 01:49:46AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: Jacob Meuser wrote: ... On 5/06/2010, at 7:31 AM, Nick Holland wrote: a patch to the upgrade guide would be wrong. The problem is the patching process (a special case of the userland build process) assumes

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 05:13:19AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: All I need to break any automated system you devise is to have some programs that I compile myself and use the system directories to hold the sources etc. then you are on your own, not someone who is just following the

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 05:13:19AM -0400, Tony Abernethy wrote: All I need to break any automated system you devise is to have some programs that I compile myself and use the system directories to hold the sources etc. then you are on your own, not someone who is just

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

Tony Abernethy tony at servasoftware.com writes: Might be better to read and comprehend ``man patch'' before assuming limitations on the scope of patch's reach. It is always so nice to trample on the person lying on the ground, ain't it! Where in 'man patch' is the underlying problem

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

wtf are you talking about tony? have you even read the upgrade guide? have you read any of this thread, at all, or did you see some long thread on misc@ and decide to jump in? we have users that say they follow the install and upgrade guides to the letter and they get fucked. there is a

Re: Installer bug? - Upgrade 4.6 to 4.7 failed to upgrade base47, on i386 and amd64

Jacob Meuser wrote: we have users that say they follow the install and upgrade guides to the letter and they get fucked. there is a problem. they don't even know /usr/obj exists. What they say. What they did. Two different things. There's lots of things they do not know about. I fail to

  1   2   >