unsubscribing
zeur here. PSA: me's unsubscribing, again. theo dragged me here and I'm not comfortable being here for long. Please Cc me in any matter that you think concerns me. Thanks, folks! --zeurkous. -- Friggin' Machines!
Re: Purpose of primary and secondary user groups
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 11:29 AM Ipsen S Ripsbusker < ip...@ripsbusker.no.eu.org> wrote: > Aside from compatibility, what is the purpose of primary groups, > compared to secondary groups? > > Said otherwise, why do we have both primary and secondary groups > rather than only secondary groups? > > Yet another phrasing: Why do I need to set a primary group? > Secondary groups can only be set, all at once, when running as root (e.g., login, sshd), while the primary group can be altered by setgid binaries and then switched among using set*gid(2). For filesystem objects like files and directories, the BSD behavior is for the object to get its group from the directory in which it was created, ignoring the groups of the process that created it. On more SysV-like systems the default is to take the primary group of the process that created it. However, for objects that exist in the kernel but not the filesystem such as pipes, sockets, and SysV shared memory segments, semaphores, and message queues, the common behavior is to take the primary group of the process that created it. This doesn't have much effect other than fstat() for pipes and sockets, but for SysV stuff it affects what operations processes can perform. Philip Guenther
Re: Purpose of primary and secondary user groups
On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 07:27:48PM +, Ipsen S Ripsbusker wrote: > Aside from compatibility, what is the purpose of primary groups, > compared to secondary groups? > > Said otherwise, why do we have both primary and secondary groups > rather than only secondary groups? > > Yet another phrasing: Why do I need to set a primary group? > Mainly for accounting purposes. man 2 intro tells you about it. -Otto
Purpose of primary and secondary user groups
Aside from compatibility, what is the purpose of primary groups, compared to secondary groups? Said otherwise, why do we have both primary and secondary groups rather than only secondary groups? Yet another phrasing: Why do I need to set a primary group?
Re: ahci error during install of 6.4
On 12/28/18 5:37 PM, Juan Francisco Cantero Hurtado wrote: > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 08:18:38AM +, Paul Swanson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm currently trying to install 6.4 on a Dell Latitude E7470 laptop (Intel >> Skylake). >> >> During the whole disk (G) partitioning process, setup fails with the >> following messages: >> >> newfs: wtfs: write error on block 8352576: Input / output error >> ahci0: attempting to idle devices >> atascsi_disk_sync_done: error >> ahci0: NCQ errored slot 14 is idle (2000 active) >> >> Assuming that perhaps there might be a bad block on the drive (nvme ssd) >> I've run read / write bad block tests on the whole drive, but nothing showed. >> >> The drive has had a working install of Ubuntu up till now, and I've >> subsequently installed Xubuntu on it successfully. >> >> As it stands I can't proceed with the install; very sad. >> >> Any help would be appreciated. > > Install OpenBSD on a usb stick, run OpenBSD from there and use dd to > write zeroes to the disk. If the disk has bad blocks you will see > similar errors in the dmesg. You can do the same with linux. > > Sometimes bad units pass the checks of badblocks programs because these > run read-only tests by default and the flash controller lies. You only > see the bad sectors when you try to write to the disk. Actually...you won't see most SSD style write errors --they will be silently remapped. After writing zeros with dd, do it again with 0xff (377 octal) -- tr '\0' '\377' < /dev/zero | dd bs=1m if=- of=/dev/rsdXc That will run a lot slower than the zeros, but now you have tested every bit of the disk for one and zero storage and remapped them. Did this recently with some annoying SSDs that have been bugging me for years, and the results have been ... promising (NO problems since). Nick.
Re: Cheaper alternatives for APC UPS
> On Dec 17, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Radek wrote: > > Hello, > > could you recommend me any UPS brands *cheaper* than APC that are fully > supported in OpenBSD? > I always use APC, managing them via USB and apcupsd(both servers and clients) > and PowerChute(windows clients). It works like a charm. APC is quite > expensive brand so I am looking for any cheaper alternatives. > > Thanks! > > -- > radek > I own a set of APC Back-UPS 750 & I’ve found them to be effective & reliable In occasions where power was lost & also determined that UPS’s can outlast my patience with the power company here in St Paul MN. At this point I can envision the APC 750’s being of assistance in many situations including the remote Canadian wilderness ;) Regards Patrick
