Theo de Raadt wrote:
Or 'n'
Thank you.
There is a reason why the installer disklabel and fdisk commands both
have a 'M' command in them, to show the manual page.
I agree, that is a handy shortcut. :-)
I am not being sarcastic. B I truly am sick of having my time wasted.
Many people get
partition as before and skip the 'm' steps if you want. Now you
can't
just type 'q' and do this, but needs to do 'm' for each partitions and keep
the
same size, offset, etc the same and provide then the mount point, then save,
quit and keep going.
If there is a way to skip these additional
Hi Daniel,
It appears as if you're still confused.
Specifiy the mount points within disklabel using 'm' or 'n' has been
standard proceedure for some time.
Some users skipped this and waited for the confirmation prompts after
quiting disklabel.
This was deemed redundant, users can already
(command 'a') or modifying (command 'm')
your partitions, or you could just name the mount points for existing
partitions without otherwise those partitions (command 'n').
I see that now.
After you finished the disk label editor, the old installer would then
prompt you to name your mount points
This whole thread is actually one more proof that nobody ever reads the
installation notes (INSTALL.*).
Miod
Need to confirm some details about creating ext2fs partitions. Since I can't
mount any part of my FreeBSD disk from OpenBSD, I need a filesystem on my
OpenBSD disk that FreeBSD can read, and the only one I'm sure about here is the
ext2fs fs. So, I need to take the currently created FFS partition
cylinderskew: 0
headswitch: 0 # microseconds
track-to-track seek: 0 # microseconds
drivedata: 0
16 partitions:
#size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg]
a: 1253070 42973875 4.2BSD 2048 163841
b: 1253070 44226945swap
, it becomes
a real label for the next boot, as described above. New MBR partitions
will not be noticed.
After adding partition 'n' I can mount and use my data drive fine. My
only guess was that I had too many partitions, but the FAQ says up to
'p') which is greater than 'n' so that's not it. So any
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:46:35PM +0100, Jon Sj?stedt wrote:
I want a
mounting point in the root file system to be mounted with a directory
found inside a device that is not yet mounted. I also want this
transparent to samba and NFS (I'll use both).
so:
- you have a device, /dev/wd0d.
-
example above) 'dataa' and
'datab' are on the same partition, and, from mount(8): For disk
partitions, the special device must correspond to a partition
registered in the disklabel(5)., so no deal.
I'm still not understanding what you want or what the problem is. This
appears to me
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:10:23AM +0100, Jon Sj?stedt wrote:
Hello all patient!
Another clarification attempt :)
I have a drive. Lets call it wd0. It has one partition wd0d that fills up
the whole drive. The root of wd0d has three directories (and no other
files) music, pictures and others.
partition, and, from mount(8): For disk
partitions, the special device must correspond to a partition
registered in the disklabel(5)., so no deal.
I'm still not understanding what you want or what the problem is.
This appears to me to be a perfectly ordinary mounting situation.
If you
How do you think file systems are mounted on top of / ?
On 2009 Jan 16 (Fri) at 11:10:23 +0100 (+0100), Jon Sjvstedt wrote:
:I still want the same structure as before, but i dont want to mount wd1d
:in a directory that is inside wd0d.
--
Never call a man a fool. Borrow from him.
If you wish to contribute there are clarifications for my somewhat unclear
initial post. If you have not seen them, read the digest.
How do you think file systems are mounted on top of / ?
On 2009 Jan 16 (Fri) at 11:10:23 +0100 (+0100), Jon Sjvstedt wrote:
:I still want the same structure as
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Jon Sjvstedt d00...@dtek.chalmers.se
wrote:
I still want the same structure as before, but i dont want to mount wd1d
in a directory that is inside wd0d.
If mount would accept something like
mount /bananas/pictures /dev/wd0d/pictures
mount /bananas/others
Hello all!
I have an issue with mount. The problem is that i would like to create a
directory with subdirs. On the subdirs I would mount directories of not
yet mounted disks. Example
mount /stuff/data1 /wd0d/dataa
mount /stuff/data2 /wd0d/datab
mount /stuff/data3 /wd1d
mount /stuff/data4
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:30:09PM +0100, Jon Sj?stedt wrote:
I have an issue with mount. The problem is that i would like to create a
directory with subdirs. On the subdirs I would mount directories of not
yet mounted disks. Example
mount /stuff/data1 /wd0d/dataa
mount /stuff/data2
the device of the
mounting, not the mounting point.
However, it seems to me that (from your example above) 'dataa' and
'datab' are on the same partition, and, from mount(8): For disk
partitions, the special device must correspond to a partition
registered in the disklabel(5)., so no deal
to work, I only have to change the device of the
mounting, not the mounting point.
However, it seems to me that (from your example above) 'dataa' and
'datab' are on the same partition, and, from mount(8): For disk
partitions, the special device must correspond to a partition
registered
I hope this question is relevant here in this group.
I've just downloaded the Olivebsd CD, to try it out on my Laptop.
I've got a 500Mb free partition doing nothing. Can that be
utilised as a swap partition to be used when the CD is running,
or is it possible to create a swap file on a FAT32
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 14:06:26 +0100, Mark Gary wrote
I hope this question is relevant here in this group.
I've just downloaded the Olivebsd CD, to try it out on my Laptop.
I've got a 500Mb free partition doing nothing. Can that be
utilised as a swap partition to be used when the CD is running,
01.04.08, 17:06, Mark Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I hope this question is relevant here in this group.
I've just downloaded the Olivebsd CD, to try it out on my Laptop.
I've got a 500Mb free partition doing nothing. Can that be
utilised as a swap partition to be used when the CD is running,
I apologize for the newbie question, but how is one supposed to add a FAT32
partition? The following shows where I have verified the partitioning of a USB
flash drive containing two partitions through fdisk. One for OpenBSD (type A6)
the rest FAT32. Yet when entering the disklabel, I am
Fred Snurd wrote:
I apologize for the newbie question,
the lack of line wraps is mighty annoying, too.
but how is one supposed to add a FAT32 partition? The following shows
where I have verified the partitioning of a USB flash drive containing
two partitions through fdisk. One
Hi again,
Am Montag, 29. Okt 2007, 02:38:08 +0100 schrieb Bertram Scharpf:
I just installed OpenBSD on a i386 from cd41.iso as
described in the FAQ, chapter 4.
When I restart the system from the CD all OpenBSD partitions
show up properly and I can chroot into /mnt after I mounted
them
Montag, 29. Okt 2007, 02:38:08 +0100 schrieb Bertram Scharpf:
I just installed OpenBSD on a i386 from cd41.iso as
described in the FAQ, chapter 4.
When I restart the system from the CD all OpenBSD partitions
show up properly and I can chroot into /mnt after I mounted
them.
However
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi again,
Am Montag, 29. Okt 2007, 02:38:08 +0100 schrieb Bertram Scharpf:
I just installed OpenBSD on a i386 from cd41.iso as
described in the FAQ, chapter 4.
When I restart the system from the CD all OpenBSD partitions
show up properly and I can chroot into /mnt
is it a recent grub? if you're reading grub source I will assume you
know more about it than I do, but am writing this on a box which boots
debian/openbsd/xp without problems, from grub installed circa 6 months
ago. I certainly did not dd any sectors around. I can send you my grub
conf when I
I am writing this from a dual-boot system with linux only and I never
had your problem.
2007/10/29, michael hamerski [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
is it a recent grub? if you're reading grub source I will assume you
know more about it than I do, but am writing this on a box which boots
debian/openbsd/xp
PROTECTED]:
On 10/28/07, Bertram Scharpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
grub root (hd1,^I
Possible partitions are:
Partition num: 0, Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0x83
Partition num: 1, Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0x82
Partition num: 4, Filesystem type
On 10/28/07, Bertram Scharpf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
grub root (hd1,^I
Possible partitions are:
Partition num: 0, Filesystem type is ext2fs, partition type 0x83
Partition num: 1, Filesystem type unknown, partition type 0x82
Partition num: 4, Filesystem type is ext2fs
). This is not supported. Reallocated your fdisk partitions so
the OpenBSD partition is a primary partition and reinstall (you may
have to resize your extended partition, ID=5, to make room).
Those @#$! extended partitions! It's really time for me to
get rid of that kind of programming style.
I
(hdb6). This is not supported. Reallocated your fdisk partitions so
the OpenBSD partition is a primary partition and reinstall (you may
have to resize your extended partition, ID=5, to make room).
Those @#$! extended partitions! It's really time for me to
get rid of that kind
language, and you have it as an extended partition
(hdb6). This is not supported.
[...] Moving partitions around on the
machine described above will take some time but I will try
it in any case and I will report.
I shuffled the OpenBSD partition to the primary section in
front and --- it works
Hi,
I just installed OpenBSD on a i386 from cd41.iso as
described in the FAQ, chapter 4.
When I restart the system from the CD all OpenBSD partitions
show up properly and I can chroot into /mnt after I mounted
them.
However, Grub refuses to recognize any of the OpenBSD
partitions. A Linux
for partitions, somehow it causes problems. But
if you use vnd1 or a higher number, it should just work.
Julian
--
If you don't remember something, it never existed...
If you aren't remembered, you never existed...
I don't quite understand what love is like... But if there
was someone who liked me, I'd
On 10/4/07, Julian Leyh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, you can't use vnd0 for partitions, somehow it causes problems. But
if you use vnd1 or a higher number, it should just work.
About the only reason I could see for that being the case is that the
release(8) process is hard-coded to use vnd0
, you can't use vnd0 for partitions, somehow it causes problems. But
if you use vnd1 or a higher number, it should just work.
uh, pretty sure that's not the case. this hogwash about encrypted
partitions is getting old:
# df -h
Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
...
/dev
Hi all,
How can I encrypt a whole partition with OpenBSD 4.1 or 4.2-current??
I only info about encrypt image files and not partitions
many thanks.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
and not partitions
many thanks.
files and not partitions
many thanks.
In this howto only explains howto encrypt sparse files and not partitions ..
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
about encrypt image files and not
partitions
many thanks.
In this howto only explains howto encrypt sparse files and not
partitions ..
the technique in the article does not only apply to sparse files. have
an encrypted /var on some of my webservers and the procedure is
identical
or
4.2-current?? I only info about encrypt image files and not
partitions
many thanks.
In this howto only explains howto encrypt sparse files and not
partitions ..
the technique in the article does not only apply to sparse files. have
an encrypted /var on some of my webservers
On 10/3/07, carlopmart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks jacob, but I have received an email from openbsd's developer
that it isn't possible to encrypt partitions or disks ... only image
files created by dd command ...
The developer of whom you speak may be slightly misinformed, or just
hasn't
On a machine that dual-boots both Windows 2000 and OpenBSD 4.0, I have
a second data hard drive (wd1) with two primary partitions, FAT32L,
which were created by Windows 2000.
Mount fails because they do not have OBSD disklabels... Device not
configured.
# disklabel wd1
...warns
At 02:40 PM 10/3/2007 -0500, Robert C Wittig wrote:
On a machine that dual-boots both Windows 2000 and OpenBSD 4.0, I have a
second data hard drive (wd1) with two primary partitions, FAT32L, which
were created by Windows 2000.
Mount fails because they do not have OBSD disklabels... Device
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:40:33PM -0500, Robert C Wittig wrote:
On a machine that dual-boots both Windows 2000 and OpenBSD 4.0, I have a
second data hard drive (wd1) with two primary partitions, FAT32L, which
were created by Windows 2000.
Mount fails because they do not have OBSD
L. V. Lammert wrote:
At 02:40 PM 10/3/2007 -0500, Robert C Wittig wrote:
On a machine that dual-boots both Windows 2000 and OpenBSD 4.0, I have
a second data hard drive (wd1) with two primary partitions, FAT32L,
which were created by Windows 2000.
Mount fails because they do not have OBSD
Joachim Schipper wrote:
You cannot, and should not try to. The automatically constructed
disklabel is fine, mount /dev/wd1i or /dev/wd1j.
Thanks, Joachim... worked perfectly!
--
-wittig http://www.robertwittig.com/
http://robertwittig.net/
http://robertwittig.org/
.
Hello!
This is a very odd problem and I have not found any answers on the net.
Hope some one can give a hint.
OpenBSD-machine (4.1-current some how) with Samba-3.0.25a serving 3
shares:
NAS,MP3 and OpenBSD.
NAS and MP3 are ext2fs-paritions on the disk, OpenBSD is ffs-partition.
Setup for those
On Sun, Aug 12, 2007 at 08:20:17PM +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov wrote:
Hello!
This is a very odd problem and I have not found any answers on the net.
Hope some one can give a hint.
OpenBSD-machine (4.1-current some how) with Samba-3.0.25a serving 3
shares:
NAS,MP3 and OpenBSD.
NAS and MP3
Joachim Schipper [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Via SAMBA, I suppose (you're also doing NFS, I see)?
Samba has a silly amount of options, most of them dictated by the
idiocy^H^Hsyncracies of Microsoft networking. However, Unix file
permissions are not always irrelevant and possibly worth checking.
Yes, mounting SMB-share.
smb-log yields NT_NO_SUCH_FILE as soon as I try to 'ls' this mounted
share.
The strange thing is what everything worked fine with older Samba (I
think it was older 3.x).
I have not changed smb.conf for a while.
On 12 aug 2007, at 21.44, Joachim Schipper wrote:
dmesg output of the disk that runs correctly:
umass0 at uhub2 port 2 configuration 1 interface 0
umass0: Cypress Semiconductor USB2.0 Storage Device, rev 2.00/0.01,
addr 2
umass0: using SCSI over Bulk-Only
sd0 at scsibus1 targ 1 lun 0: ST315323, A, SCSI0 0/direct fixed
sd0: 14652MB, 14652
Hi, thanks for your answer
Yes, I'm running GENERIC:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/angel $ uname -a
OpenBSD notdefined 3.9 GENERIC#617 i386
Really, I don't know why scsibus isn't attaching, can I attach it
manually without rebuild the kernel?
2007/2/6, Brian A. Seklecki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
dmesg
Hi, first, sorry for my poor english..
I have a 250Gb external usb disk with three FAT32 partitions (two of
100Gb and an other of 50Gb), formatted on Windows. In addition I have
an external usb box for IDE hdd's too with a 15Gb disk formatted on
OpenBSD with runs correctly, in this case, it's
I'm trying to mount my FreeBSD partitions in OpenBSD. OpenBSD has no
problem finding, reading and writing to the root partition for FreeBSD but
doesn't see the other partitions(/home, /usr, /var). I know I have to
manually edit the disklabel to add those partitions. My problem
On 1/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to mount my FreeBSD partitions in OpenBSD. OpenBSD has no
problem finding, reading and writing to the root partition for FreeBSD but
doesn't see the other partitions(/home, /usr, /var). I know I have to
manually edit the disklabel
Hey list,
I have stupid question - I have one raid device, so I want to make
separate /var/www partition, only for web server. At first it looks
ok:
# df -h
Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/raid0a4.9G 37.4M4.6G 1%/
/dev/raid0b9.8G1.2G
So, question is - how is it possible? It looks like something I'm
missing. I don't know how, but it looks like all www date is written
Order is important. It looks like you mounted /var/www before /var
in which case /var/www is hidden. /etc/fstab must be in the order
that you want
,nosuid 1 2
Yes, I know that. I've tried at first to mount /var and then mount
other /var partitions. But the reason why I've changed that (if I
remember correctly) was that the system was unable to mount /var/xxx
(busy or smth.). I'll try to change that back.
--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus
2
/dev/wd0h /var/wwwffsrw,nodev,nosuid 1 2
Yes, I know that. I've tried at first to mount /var and then mount
other /var partitions. But the reason why I've changed that (if I
remember correctly) was that the system was unable to mount /var/xxx
(busy or smth.). I'll try
latest snapshot doesn't see the last two partitions on my disk.
neither 3.9, linux or freebsd have any problem with that.
Does anyone know what's going on ?
Thanks a lot.
(see below the output from disklabel -d, as seen on the snapshot
from September 1st and on 3.9
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Adi wrote:
latest snapshot doesn't see the last two partitions on my disk.
neither 3.9, linux or freebsd have any problem with that.
Does anyone know what's going on ?
Can you try to revert sys/arch/i386/i386/disksubr.c to rev 1.53 and see
if the problem goes away
that was supposed to go to the list, sorry.
Adi
On 9/15/06, Adi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you try to revert sys/arch/i386/i386/disksubr.c to rev 1.53 and see
if the problem goes away?
yes, that fixes it.
Adi
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 09:39:28PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote:
Yes, but /etc/rc doesn't:
# prune quickly with one rm, then use find to clean up /tmp/[lq]*
# (not needed with mfs /tmp, but doesn't hurt there...)
(cd /tmp rm -rf [a-km-pr-zA-Z]*
find . ! -name . ! -name lost+found !
On Friday 30 June 2006 20:45, Craig Skinner wrote:
I always symlink /var/tmp to my /tmp partition and mount /tmp with:
nodev,noexec,nosuid,noatime,async - as it gets wiped at boot anyway.
/var/tmp is not wiped at boot.
---
Lars Hansson
From: Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 30 June 2006 20:45, Craig Skinner wrote:
I always symlink /var/tmp to my /tmp partition and mount /tmp with:
nodev,noexec,nosuid,noatime,async - as it gets wiped at boot anyway.
/var/tmp is not wiped at boot.
-No, but /tmp is and if you symlink
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 05:32:27PM +0100, Stefan Olsson wrote:
From: Lars Hansson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 30 June 2006 20:45, Craig Skinner wrote:
I always symlink /var/tmp to my /tmp partition and mount /tmp with:
nodev,noexec,nosuid,noatime,async - as it gets wiped at boot anyway.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 01:45:15PM +0100, Craig Skinner wrote:
| On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:00:12PM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
|
| I never understood why putting /tmp on its own partition is good when
nobody
| notices /var/tmp. In addition to /tmp I always put /var/tmp on its own
|
On Sat, Jul 01, 2006 at 07:40:18PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
| I always symlink /var/tmp to my /tmp partition and mount /tmp with:
| nodev,noexec,nosuid,noatime,async - as it gets wiped at boot anyway.
Not only at boot, see daily(8) :
- Removes scratch and junk files from /tmp and
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of John Brahy
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:00 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: [misc] Partitions
At first I didn't understand the reason for all the partitions (
http://archives.neohapsis.com
Hi,
So am I going overboard? or am I missing any good partions.
I never understood why putting /tmp on its own partition is good when nobody
notices /var/tmp. In addition to /tmp I always put /var/tmp on its own
partition too, so that I can mount it with nodev,noexec,nosuid.
I also try to
* Nick [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-06-30 03:33]:
yes, I'd say you are going a bit overboard.
very slightly, if at all.
nor do I see any real-life benefit to a /usr/local partition.
I do, a lot.
prevent 3rd party crap shit from overflowing /usr.
and, that way, you can even mount /usr RO unless
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:00:12PM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
I never understood why putting /tmp on its own partition is good when nobody
notices /var/tmp. In addition to /tmp I always put /var/tmp on its own
partition too, so that I can mount it with nodev,noexec,nosuid.
I always
At first I didn't understand the reason for all the partitions (
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2001-01/1654.html) now I
can't have enough partitions
In my official OpenBSD CD sleeve it says to create these partitions:
/
swap
/tmp
/var
/usr
/home
and over time I have learned
On Jun 29, 2006, at 3:00 PM, John Brahy wrote:
At first I didn't understand the reason for all the partitions (
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2001-01/1654.html)
now I
can't have enough partitions
The main advantage of partitions is that you can isolate file systems
it should not only have
it's own partition, but you should move it to another disk (and even
controller). Etc., etc...
The more experienced I get, the better I am at choosing what to
partition seperately, and how big to make the partitions. Some of the
best advice is to partition what you think you'll
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At first I didn't understand the reason for all the partitions (
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2001-01/1654.ht
ml) now I
can't have enough partitions
An example of a problem you can run into with overpartioning is being too
carve-happy. You've got
On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 02:00:17PM -0700, John Brahy wrote:
At first I didn't understand the reason for all the partitions (
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/openbsd/2001-01/1654.html) now I
can't have enough partitions
In my official OpenBSD CD sleeve it says to create
John Brahy wrote:
...
and over time I have learned to appreciate these, but lately I have been
creating more partitions
/usr/src
/usr/obj
are two of the ones that are suggested when rebuilding my system and I
definitely like the speed of doing a newfs to /usr/obj
Certainly handy.
On the other
up until now i've abstained from having backups for the encrypted directories
and partitions on my machines. since my attachment to this data has grown as of
late, i would like to know if there are any gotchas for backing up encrypted
data. the concern i have is that if a lot of changes are made
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 07:37:12PM +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
version: 3.8
architecture: i386
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Just curious, but why would want /etc on a separate partition?
Have a great
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:37:12 +0100
Michael Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
version: 3.8
architecture: i386
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Have a nice day
Michael
--
Michael Schmidt MIRRORS:
Tobias Weingartner wrote:
On Monday, February 27, Michael Schmidt wrote:
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Where is the information located that tells it how/where to mount
the /etc partition from?
Okay,
Hello,
version: 3.8
architecture: i386
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Have a nice day
Michael
--
Michael Schmidt MIRRORS:
DJGPP ftp://ftp.fh-koblenz.de/pub/DJGPP/
Ghostscript
Hello!
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 07:37:12PM +0100, Michael Schmidt wrote:
Hello,
version: 3.8
architecture: i386
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Because init wants to start a shell on /etc/rc, and mount -a ... wants
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Because it is the directory that contains the lists first shell script
which must be run, /etc/rc. Same reason that /sbin cannot be a
different mount point, because then you cannot get at
Michael Schmidt wrote:
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
The rc scripts need to be able to read /etc/fstab to know what
filesystems besides / to mount.
Dustin Lundquist
Speaking from experience, I put /etc on a separate partition once, only took 2
hours to recover it but it was a lesson well learned... There are several
file located in the /etc/ directory that need to be immediately available
upon boot. These include /etc/fstab and /etc/rc*.
Tim Donahue
On
On Monday, February 27, Michael Schmidt wrote:
version: 3.8
architecture: i386
I have seen that /etc cannot be located on a separated partition.
Why can it be not on an extra partition?
Where is the information located that tells it how/where to mount
the /etc partition from?
--Toby.
. I just tried
filling /tmp and the system and it's running fine. And I've seen other
partitions fill up with no problems before.
I've put in place scripts to log as much info as possible and see what
happens. If it hasn't recurred by tonight I'll attempt to reproduce the
same conditions
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:00:41AM +, MikeyG wrote:
Is there any way to direct cores to be saved somewhere else?
...
Feb 6 10:36:36 boxname /bsd: WARNING: / was not properly unmounted
Feb 6 10:37:37 boxname savecore: reboot after panic: trap type 6,
code=2, pc=d033737c
Feb 6 10:37:37
quotas set on the /home partition and
everywhere else besides /tmp that the users could be putting data, and
there is of course the 5% of space reserved on all partitions.
Everything divided into separate partitions as recommended. /tmp is
virtually unused most of the time so I can't figure out
When the system comes back up everything appears to be fine, /tmp having
been emptied by rc. There seems to be nothing logged to tell me what
might have happened so I'm just left scratching my head.
After a crash boot into single user and see what's in /tmp.
MikeyG wrote:
Hi,
I'm seeing a recurring problem whereby a users process is causing the
system to crash by (I believe) filling up the /tmp partition. Twice this
week this has happened shortly after I have renice-d a resource hungry
bittorrent download I've seen a user running.
I question
On 2/6/06, MikeyG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing a recurring problem whereby a users process is causing the
system to crash by (I believe) filling up the /tmp partition.
I have several boxes which all have /tmp (and /var/log) on a mfs, which
is 105% after some time. These boxes admittedly
')
partitions in place.
maybe someone can comment on this?
--
steven
Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
On 18/12/05, steven mestdagh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see the same happening on 3.8-release vs. 3.8-current on i386 for
systems with foreign filesystems. Not sure why.
Think it could be a bug?
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 01:40:29PM +, Simon Morgan wrote:
I'm currently running OpenBSD/i386 3.8 on an AMD64 machine and just went to
install the latest AMD64 snapshot. The hard drive I'm installing to has a
number of ext3 partitions contained in an extended partition.
When I installed
201 - 300 of 314 matches
Mail list logo
