Re: Moving filesystems around
Hello Jay, jh...@kevla.org (Jay Hart), 2018.07.27 (Fri) 04:42 (CEST): > > Hello, > > jh...@kevla.org (Jay Hart), 2018.07.25 (Wed) 21:31 (CEST): > >> Running a stock 6.3 machine. I just bought a new server and hope to > >> move this drive over, but think I need to move two partitions around > >> at get more space. > > > > I'm not sure you need to... > > My /usr is just 895M. Yours is fuller because you have /usr/local on the > > same slice? > > If so, I'd consider this the problem. > > You'd have slices left after your wd0i[1], but is there unassigned > > space left on the disk? > > If so, I'd create a new slice and put /usr/local there. > > > > More info would have been helpful, show output of mount(8) and df(1), > > disklabel, fdisk, dmesg, perhaps? > > > > [1] what, a wd(4)?! ;-) > > > > Marcus > > > > Actually, I have a separate /usr/local partition, just didn't mention > it. Why has your /usr twice as much on it than mine, then? /usr/src? /usr/ports? du -sh /usr/*? > Your post got me thinking (as did some of the others). I've been > upgrading this box since 5.6 or > so and maybe its time to wipe it and start fresh on the new box. Just > copy over my config files after I'm done. I've recently upgraded an equally outdated box and sysmerge(8) was no fun. Lots of differences in config files after such a looong time makes merging hard. Thus installing might be the right thing. > Since I just follow stable releases, I don't bother downloading the > source code and building patches, so /usr should stay small and clean > with syspatch and sysclean, unless I'm very wrong about how they work. I think you got it right. /usr is rather static, unless it grows rapidly, like recently for /usr/share/relink/. syspatch(8) gives you patches for errata for the latest release and one version before, IIRC. sysclean(8) gives you a list of files not required by the installed base system and the installed ports. Marcus > >> I have one drive installed, with about 6 partitions. > >> > >> /var is a 6.3G partition (wd0e) using 50M of space > >> /usr is a 2.0G partition (wd0f) using 1.6G of space > >> > >> Last partition number is wd0i. > >> > >> What would the recommended procedure to use to swap these two partitions?
Re: Moving filesystems around
> Hello, > > jh...@kevla.org (Jay Hart), 2018.07.25 (Wed) 21:31 (CEST): >> Running a stock 6.3 machine. I just bought a new server and hope to >> move this drive over, but think I need to move two partitions around >> at get more space. > > I'm not sure you need to... > My /usr is just 895M. Yours is fuller because you have /usr/local on the > same slice? > If so, I'd consider this the problem. > You'd have slices left after your wd0i[1], but is there unassigned > space left on the disk? > If so, I'd create a new slice and put /usr/local there. > > More info would have been helpful, show output of mount(8) and df(1), > disklabel, fdisk, dmesg, perhaps? > > [1] what, a wd(4)?! ;-) > > Marcus > Actually, I have a separate /usr/local partition, just didn't mention it. Your post got me thinking (as did some of the others). I've been upgrading this box since 5.6 or so and maybe its time to wipe it and start fresh on the new box. Just copy over my config files after I'm done. Since I just follow stable releases, I don't bother downloading the source code and building patches, so /usr should stay small and clean with syspatch and sysclean, unless I'm very wrong about how they work. Jay >> I have one drive installed, with about 6 partitions. >> >> /var is a 6.3G partition (wd0e) using 50M of space >> /usr is a 2.0G partition (wd0f) using 1.6G of space >> >> Last partition number is wd0i. >> >> What would the recommended procedure to use to swap these two partitions? >
Re: Moving filesystems around
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 3:32 PM Jay Hart wrote: > /var is a 6.3G partition (wd0e) using 50M of space > /usr is a 2.0G partition (wd0f) using 1.6G of space > > What would the recommended procedure to use to swap these two partitions? I wouldn't swap them exactly, rather I would make a /usr/local (and perhaps other file systems as well) so that /usr doesn't need to be very large to begin with. The general procedure I would follow is: 1. boot bsd.rd 2. mount your /dev/wd0e on /mnt 3. dump /mnt to a file (or to tape if you prefer). you may first need to mount another file system to store the dumpfile. 4. unmount /mnt, use disklabel to delete the 'e' partition from wd0, then recreate it with a smaller size 5. use newfs to build an empty file system on your new smaller wd0e partition 6. mount /dev/wd0e on /mnt again and restore the contents from the dump file you made in step 3. 7. reboot your system normally. You should then have a big chunk of unused space that you can use to make one or more new file systems for things like /usr/local, etc. If you want to shrink /usr the procedure is similar, just with 'f' instead of 'e'. Consult the man pages for dump(8) and restore(8) for more information about how to use these commands. You will probably want to use dump with the -a option, and you will probably want to use restore with the -r option. -ken
Re: Moving filesystems around
Hello, jh...@kevla.org (Jay Hart), 2018.07.25 (Wed) 21:31 (CEST): > Running a stock 6.3 machine. I just bought a new server and hope to > move this drive over, but think I need to move two partitions around > at get more space. I'm not sure you need to... My /usr is just 895M. Yours is fuller because you have /usr/local on the same slice? If so, I'd consider this the problem. You'd have slices left after your wd0i[1], but is there unassigned space left on the disk? If so, I'd create a new slice and put /usr/local there. More info would have been helpful, show output of mount(8) and df(1), disklabel, fdisk, dmesg, perhaps? [1] what, a wd(4)?! ;-) Marcus > I have one drive installed, with about 6 partitions. > > /var is a 6.3G partition (wd0e) using 50M of space > /usr is a 2.0G partition (wd0f) using 1.6G of space > > Last partition number is wd0i. > > What would the recommended procedure to use to swap these two partitions?
Moving filesystems around
Hello, Running a stock 6.3 machine. I just bought a new server and hope to move this drive over, but think I need to move two partitions around at get more space. I have one drive installed, with about 6 partitions. /var is a 6.3G partition (wd0e) using 50M of space /usr is a 2.0G partition (wd0f) using 1.6G of space Last partition number is wd0i. What would the recommended procedure to use to swap these two partitions? I have 4G of RAM in the box, with 3G free at any one time. TIA, Jay
Behavior with nested vnd's/filesystems
Greetings. I'm curious whether the behavior I'm seeing is intended when dealing with the situation of nested vnd files where the lower/outer device is read-only (or whether I'm misunderstanding some filesystem semantics). Full steps to reproduce are below (a little verbose, I apologize) on 5.6-stable. The summary is: Expected: Mount outer vnd as ro, mount inner vnd as ro. Expected: Mount outer vnd as ro, attempt to mount inner vnd as rw, fails. Unexpected: Mount outer vnd as ro, mount inner vnd as ro. Attempt to remount inner vnd as rw, it succeeds despite outer vnd remaining ro. Mounted inner vnd will accept changes, which appear to be retained in the filesystem after unmounting everything and remounting. - Create a 50 MB a.vnd... # dd if=/dev/zero of=a.vnd bs=1m count=50 ... # vnconfig vnd0 a.vnd # fdisk -i vnd0 ... # disklabel -Aw vnd0 # newfs /dev/rvnd0a ... # mount /dev/vnd0a /tmp/a Repeat the process for a 25 MB b.vnd inside the mounted a.vnd... # cd /tmp/a # dd if=/dev/zero of=b.vnd bs=1m count=25 ... # vnconfig vnd1 b.vnd # fdisk -i vnd1 ... # disklabel -Aw vnd1 # newfs /dev/rvnd1a ... # mount /dev/vnd1a /tmp/b Looks good so far, both are mounted rw. Unconfigure and unmount each vnd, outer first. Mount both as ro... # vnconfig vnd0 a.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd0a /tmp/a # vnconfig vnd1 /tmp/a/b.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd1a /tmp/b # mount|grep vnd /dev/vnd0a on /tmp/a type ffs (local, read-only) /dev/vnd1a on /tmp/b type ffs (local, read-only) Start over, mount a.vnd as ro, attempt to mount b.vnd as rw... # vnconfig vnd0 a.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd0a /tmp/a # vnconfig vnd1 /tmp/a/b.vnd # mount -o rw /dev/vnd1a /tmp/b mount_ffs: /dev/vnd1a on /tmp/b: filesystem must be mounted read-only; you may need to run fsck Start over, mount both as ro, then switch /tmp/b to rw... # vnconfig vnd0 a.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd0a /tmp/a # vnconfig vnd1 /tmp/a/b.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd1a /tmp/b # mount|grep vnd /dev/vnd0a on /tmp/a type ffs (local, read-only) /dev/vnd1a on /tmp/b type ffs (local, read-only) # mount -oupdate,rw /tmp/b # mount|grep vnd /dev/vnd0a on /tmp/a type ffs (local, read-only) /dev/vnd1a on /tmp/b type ffs (local) Verify /tmp/a still ro, write to the newly-rw /tmp/b, and unmount... # echo hi /tmp/a/test ksh: cannot create /tmp/a/test: Read-only file system # echo hi /tmp/b/test # umount /tmp/b # vnconfig -u vnd1 # umount /tmp/a # vnconfig -u vnd0 Verify write succeeded... # vnconfig vnd0 a.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd0a /tmp/a # vnconfig vnd1 /tmp/a/b.vnd # mount -o ro /dev/vnd1a /tmp/b # cat /tmp/b/test hi I was surprised that a.) the /tmp/b mount allowed itself to be changed to rw, and that b.) the /tmp/a mount accepted changes to its filesystem despite being read-only. Thanks. Brian Conway
Re: Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:16:53 -0800 From: mlar...@azathoth.net To: t...@tedunangst.com CC: xx...@msn.com; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:13:05AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 09:17, Helg Bredow wrote: I've been running OpenBSD 5.4 off a USB stick and couldn't get suspend/resume to work on either of my laptops. I thought maybe it was a driver issue but I've now installed the latest snapshot to the internal HDD and suspend/resume seems to be working fine. However, suspend causes a detach of the whole ugen to umass stack to detach so any mounted USB filesytems end up in an unclean state. This is probably what was causing it to fail when booting off USB. Is there anything that I need to configure in order to prevent this from happening? I don't think there's anything you can do. That's how the kernel does things (detach usb, reattach). We could: 1. postpone the device detach until after resume, and then only detach devices which are actually missing. I'm not sure how much madness this would involve. 2. postpone forced filesystem unmount until after resume to see if the disk comes back. I'm fairly certain this will involve a lot of madness. This is not likely going to be fixed in any near timeframe. It's just too much headache. -ml I can make sure that I unmount any externally mounted filesystems before suspending. Seeing as it's not going to be easy to fix, the man page for apm/zzz/ZZZ should probably mention that suspending while a filesystem is mounted is not supported.
Re: Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems
I can make sure that I unmount any externally mounted filesystems before suspending. Seeing as it's not going to be easy to fix, the man page for apm/zzz/ZZZ should probably mention that suspending while a filesystem is mounted is not supported. I do not see the need for such a piece of documentation. It is not the filesystem which goes away, it is that devices known to not be part of the machine are detached. Upon resume, we have no way of verifying they are the same and placing them in the same configuration. It is an obvious mechanism.
Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems
I've been running OpenBSD 5.4 off a USB stick and couldn't get suspend/resume to work on either of my laptops. I thought maybe it was a driver issue but I've now installed the latest snapshot to the internal HDD and suspend/resume seems to be working fine. However, suspend causes a detach of the whole ugen to umass stack to detach so any mounted USB filesytems end up in an unclean state. This is probably what was causing it to fail when booting off USB. Is there anything that I need to configure in order to prevent this from happening? Thanks, helg
Re: Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 09:17, Helg Bredow wrote: I've been running OpenBSD 5.4 off a USB stick and couldn't get suspend/resume to work on either of my laptops. I thought maybe it was a driver issue but I've now installed the latest snapshot to the internal HDD and suspend/resume seems to be working fine. However, suspend causes a detach of the whole ugen to umass stack to detach so any mounted USB filesytems end up in an unclean state. This is probably what was causing it to fail when booting off USB. Is there anything that I need to configure in order to prevent this from happening? I don't think there's anything you can do. That's how the kernel does things (detach usb, reattach). We could: 1. postpone the device detach until after resume, and then only detach devices which are actually missing. I'm not sure how much madness this would involve. 2. postpone forced filesystem unmount until after resume to see if the disk comes back. I'm fairly certain this will involve a lot of madness.
Re: Suspend/Resume and USB filesystems
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:13:05AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 09:17, Helg Bredow wrote: I've been running OpenBSD 5.4 off a USB stick and couldn't get suspend/resume to work on either of my laptops. I thought maybe it was a driver issue but I've now installed the latest snapshot to the internal HDD and suspend/resume seems to be working fine. However, suspend causes a detach of the whole ugen to umass stack to detach so any mounted USB filesytems end up in an unclean state. This is probably what was causing it to fail when booting off USB. Is there anything that I need to configure in order to prevent this from happening? I don't think there's anything you can do. That's how the kernel does things (detach usb, reattach). We could: 1. postpone the device detach until after resume, and then only detach devices which are actually missing. I'm not sure how much madness this would involve. 2. postpone forced filesystem unmount until after resume to see if the disk comes back. I'm fairly certain this will involve a lot of madness. This is not likely going to be fixed in any near timeframe. It's just too much headache. -ml
newfs_msdos(8) creates faulty filesystems
While harmless it seesm pointless to create a filesystem that generates
warnings when fsck'd.
So check for -1 (an allowed value) in FSFree and FSNext fields, and
set FSNext to -1 in newfs_msdos, rather than setting it to a
value sure to be not a free cluster.
Anybody know of reasons to not do this?
Ken
Index: fsck_msdos/fat.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/fsck_msdos/fat.c,v
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -p -r1.18 fat.c
--- fsck_msdos/fat.c27 Oct 2009 23:59:33 - 1.18
+++ fsck_msdos/fat.c21 Oct 2013 09:53:56 -
@@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ checklost(int dosfs, struct bootblock *b
if (boot-FSInfo) {
ret = 0;
- if (boot-FSFree != boot-NumFree) {
+ if (boot-FSFree != -1 boot-FSFree != boot-NumFree) {
pwarn(Free space in FSInfo block (%d) not correct
(%d)\n,
boot-FSFree, boot-NumFree);
if (ask(1, fix)) {
@@ -535,7 +535,8 @@ checklost(int dosfs, struct bootblock *b
ret = 1;
}
}
- if (boot-NumFree fat[boot-FSNext].next != CLUST_FREE) {
+ if (boot-NumFree boot-FSNext != -1
+ fat[boot-FSNext].next != CLUST_FREE) {
pwarn(Next free cluster in FSInfo block (%u) not
free\n,
boot-FSNext);
if (ask(1, fix))
Index: newfs_msdos/newfs_msdos.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/newfs_msdos/newfs_msdos.c,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -p -r1.20 newfs_msdos.c
--- newfs_msdos/newfs_msdos.c 18 May 2010 04:41:14 - 1.20
+++ newfs_msdos/newfs_msdos.c 21 Oct 2013 09:48:48 -
@@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
mk4(img, 0x41615252);
mk4(img + bpb.bps - 28, 0x61417272);
mk4(img + bpb.bps - 24, 0x);
- mk4(img + bpb.bps - 20, bpb.rdcl);
+ mk4(img + bpb.bps - 20, 0x);
mk2(img + bpb.bps - 2, DOSMAGIC);
} else if (lsn = bpb.res lsn dir
!((lsn - bpb.res) %
newfs_msdos(8) creates faulty filesystems
Hello, a filesystem created by newfs_msdos(8) is reported as faulty by fsck_msdos(8). And it is indeed. Repeatable. There must be something wrong. The media itself (a USB flash drive) doesn't have any issues. # newfs -t msdos /dev/rsd4i /dev/rsd4i: 31224352 sectors in 3903044 FAT32 clusters (4096 bytes/cluster) bps=512 spc=8 res=32 nft=2 mid=0xf8 spt=63 hds=255 hid=8064 bsec=31285376 bspf=30493 rdcl=2 infs=1 bkbs=2 # fsck -n /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i (NO WRITE) ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files Free space in FSInfo block (-1) not correct (3903043) fix? no Next free cluster in FSInfo block (2) not free fix? no 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) # fsck /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files Free space in FSInfo block (-1) not correct (3903043) fix? [Fyn] y Next free cluster in FSInfo block (2) not free fix? [Fyn] y 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) # fsck /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) OpenBSD 5.3 (GENERIC.MP) #53: Fri Mar 1 09:34:37 MST 2013 dera...@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENERIC.MP umass1 at uhub0 port 4 configuration 1 interface 0 Kingston DT 101 G2 rev 2.00/1.00 addr 3 umass1: using SCSI over Bulk-Only scsibus4 at umass1: 2 targets, initiator 0 sd4 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 0: Kingston, DT 101 G2, PMAP SCSI0 0/direct removable serial.09511642BC81D71A0189 sd4: 15280MB, 512 bytes/sector, 31293440 sectors # fdisk sd4 Disk: sd4 geometry: 1947/255/63 [31293440 Sectors] Offset: 0 Signature: 0xAA55 Starting Ending LBA Info: #: id C H S - C H S [ start:size ] --- *0: 0C 0 128 1 - 1947 236 17 [8064:31285376 ] Win95 FAT32L 1: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused 2: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused 3: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused # disklabel sd4 # /dev/rsd4c: type: SCSI disk: SCSI disk label: DT 101 G2 duid: flags: bytes/sector: 512 sectors/track: 63 tracks/cylinder: 255 sectors/cylinder: 16065 cylinders: 1947 total sectors: 31293440 boundstart: 0 boundend: 31293440 drivedata: 0 16 partitions: #size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg] c: 312934400 unused i: 31285376 8064 MSDOS Regards, David
Re: newfs_msdos(8) creates faulty filesystems
Neither field is required. 'Free Space' in fsinfo can be -1 or just wrong, and 'Next Free Cluster' is a hint only. Hence in either case you can fix them up, or ignore their incorrectness and the filesystem is still considered ok. And since they are not required I guess newfs never bothered to fill them out correctly. Ken On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM, David Vasek va...@fido.cz wrote: Hello, a filesystem created by newfs_msdos(8) is reported as faulty by fsck_msdos(8). And it is indeed. Repeatable. There must be something wrong. The media itself (a USB flash drive) doesn't have any issues. # newfs -t msdos /dev/rsd4i /dev/rsd4i: 31224352 sectors in 3903044 FAT32 clusters (4096 bytes/cluster) bps=512 spc=8 res=32 nft=2 mid=0xf8 spt=63 hds=255 hid=8064 bsec=31285376 bspf=30493 rdcl=2 infs=1 bkbs=2 # fsck -n /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i (NO WRITE) ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files Free space in FSInfo block (-1) not correct (3903043) fix? no Next free cluster in FSInfo block (2) not free fix? no 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) # fsck /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files Free space in FSInfo block (-1) not correct (3903043) fix? [Fyn] y Next free cluster in FSInfo block (2) not free fix? [Fyn] y 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) # fsck /dev/rsd4i ** /dev/rsd4i ** Phase 1 - Read and Compare FATs ** Phase 2 - Check Cluster Chains ** Phase 3 - Check Directories ** Phase 4 - Check for Lost Files 1 files, 3029260 free (3903043 clusters) OpenBSD 5.3 (GENERIC.MP) #53: Fri Mar 1 09:34:37 MST 2013 dera...@i386.openbsd.org:/usr/**src/sys/arch/i386/compile/GENE**RIC.MPhttp://GENERIC.MP umass1 at uhub0 port 4 configuration 1 interface 0 Kingston DT 101 G2 rev 2.00/1.00 addr 3 umass1: using SCSI over Bulk-Only scsibus4 at umass1: 2 targets, initiator 0 sd4 at scsibus4 targ 1 lun 0: Kingston, DT 101 G2, PMAP SCSI0 0/direct removable serial.09511642BC81D71A0189 sd4: 15280MB, 512 bytes/sector, 31293440 sectors # fdisk sd4 Disk: sd4 geometry: 1947/255/63 [31293440 Sectors] Offset: 0 Signature: 0xAA55 Starting Ending LBA Info: #: id C H S - C H S [ start:size ] --**--** --- *0: 0C 0 128 1 - 1947 236 17 [8064:31285376 ] Win95 FAT32L 1: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused 2: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused 3: 00 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 [ 0: 0 ] unused # disklabel sd4 # /dev/rsd4c: type: SCSI disk: SCSI disk label: DT 101 G2 duid: flags: bytes/sector: 512 sectors/track: 63 tracks/cylinder: 255 sectors/cylinder: 16065 cylinders: 1947 total sectors: 31293440 boundstart: 0 boundend: 31293440 drivedata: 0 16 partitions: #size offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg] c: 312934400 unused i: 31285376 8064 MSDOS Regards, David
multiple softraid-crypto filesystems
I have an amd64 laptop (Thinkpad T60) whose /, /var, and /usr are standard FFS partitions (dksklabel fstype 4.2BSD), while /home is encrypted via softraid crypto: on boot I login as root, and run a perl script which executes (with lots of error checking optional logging) # sd0 is the built-in disk; sd0j has disklabel fstype RAID bioctl -c C -r 10 -l /dev/sd0j softraid0 mount -o softdep,noatime /dev/sd1a /home This works nicely. Now I want to set up a similarly-encrypted external USB backup disk which I can access concurrently with my encrypted /home. Since this is to be a distinct physical disk, a distinct filesystem, and (presumably) a distinct set of encryption parameters, I presume I need to use a different softraid device from softraid0 (which is handling /home): # assume sd2 is the external disk, and sd2j has filesystem type RAID bioctl -c C -r 10 -l /dev/sd2j softraid1 mount -o softdep,noatime /dev/sd3a /mnt Unfortunately, this doesn't work: as of either 5.3-release or 5.1-stable (GENERIC.MP in all cases), bioctl gives the error message # bioctl -c C -r 10 -l /dev/sd2j softraid1 bioctl: Can't locate softraid1 device via /dev/bio Indeed, even a status-check on softraid1 fails: # bioctl softraid1 bioctl: Can't locate softraid1 device via /dev/bio and a quick grep through dmesg reveals only one softraid device (softraid0) mentioned. Question: What's the right way to have multiple independent softraid crypto filesystems? Question: Which Fine Manual should I have read to learn this? I can't find any mention of this situation in softraid(4) or bioctl(8). ciao, -- -- Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] jth...@astro.indiana-zebra.edu Dept of Astronomy IUCSS, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. -- George Orwell, 1984
Re: multiple softraid-crypto filesystems
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 21:41, Jonathan Thornburg wrote: # bioctl softraid1 bioctl: Can't locate softraid1 device via /dev/bio and a quick grep through dmesg reveals only one softraid device (softraid0) mentioned. Question: What's the right way to have multiple independent softraid crypto filesystems? There is only one softraid, softraid0. A SCSI controller can have multiple disks attached to it, so keep using softraid0. This isn't documented per se, but discoverable by observing that softraid0 is attached even when no softraid disks are. When you attach the disks, only sd? devices appear.
resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems
I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. -- www.johntate.org
Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:46:34PM +1100, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Don't try to make a symlink. Create /etc/mk.conf and add to that file `PORTSDIR=/home/usr/ports'. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:46:34PM +1100, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. /etc/mk.conf PORTSDIR=real location
Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:46, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. growfs. If you're lucky you won't screw up and lose everything.
Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 06:39:04PM +, Ted Unangst wrote: On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:46, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. growfs. If you're lucky you won't screw up and lose everything. As the name implies, it only grows, you need to have or create free space at the end of the partition you want to grow. -Otto
Re: Antimalware for server mail and filesystems protect
On 2012-05-20, Ralph Ellis ralphell...@netscape.ca wrote: Clamav is the most easily available antimalware for OpenBSD. I would also take a look at F-Prot for OpenBSD workstations or servers. http://www.f-prot.com/download/corporate/ I have read some reviews that F-Prot has a higher identification rate for malware. OpenBSD itself is rarely a target for these exploits but if you are using OpenBSD as a gateway or mail server for Windows systems, you may find these programs helpful. Many of the programs which hook other software into virus scanners (amavisd-new, havp, mailscanner, etc) support multiple scanners if you don't want to rely on just one.
Re: Antimalware for server mail and filesystems protect
On 05/19/12 23:52, hvom .org wrote: Hi all I'm searching one soluce for protected my data ... . I'm look Clamav ( it's a good idea ?), ESET is good antimalware for BSD. You soluce and hack, help please. Cordialy Clamav is the most easily available antimalware for OpenBSD. I would also take a look at F-Prot for OpenBSD workstations or servers. http://www.f-prot.com/download/corporate/ I have read some reviews that F-Prot has a higher identification rate for malware. OpenBSD itself is rarely a target for these exploits but if you are using OpenBSD as a gateway or mail server for Windows systems, you may find these programs helpful. Good luck Ralph Ellis
Re: Antimalware for server mail and filesystems protect
On Sun, 20 May 2012 09:09:37 -0400 Ralph Ellis wrote: OpenBSD itself is rarely a target for these exploits but if you are using OpenBSD as a gateway or mail server for Windows systems, you may find these programs helpful. Don't forget, you may well be trading server for client security. Of course the latter may be a greater risk for you. Clamav has a pretty cool phishing catcher/warner too.
Antimalware for server mail and filesystems protect
Hi all I'm searching one soluce for protected my data ... . I'm look Clamav ( it's a good idea ?), ESET is good antimalware for BSD. You soluce and hack, help please. Cordialy
Mounting big FAT filesystems
Well, after reading Trouble with large files in current snapshot, I would like to ask something different: it is true that FAT filesystems of more than 120GB cannot be mounted? Will this change? My experience is unfortunately, that it is true. It is not that I like FAT filesystems, but it is in my experience the only filesystem that can be mounted rw in almost every unix-like operating system (and also M$ Windoze). Do you know an alternative? Rodrigo
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:20:57 + wrote: it is true that FAT filesystems of more than 120GB cannot be mounted? Will this change? You can install ext support on windows but that's not as ready to go without autoplay install which may be disabled anyway but does get around the 2G max filesize. I remember when microsoft released windows 2000 and said that 32GB was the limit and to move to ntfs. I was already using an 80GB drive and the windows 95 manual also contradicted the claims.
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:20:57AM +, sc...@web.de wrote: Well, after reading Trouble with large files in current snapshot, I would like to ask something different: it is true that FAT filesystems of more than 120GB cannot be mounted? Will this change? [...] In my experience, that is not true. I have a 250 GB disk here formatted with FAT32 (using newfs_msdos) that can be mounted by OpenBSD and Linux (Windows doesn't want to, but only because it can't deal with partition tables on USB attached external disks). -- Gregor Best [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011, sc...@web.de wrote: Well, after reading Trouble with large files in current snapshot, I would like to ask something different: it is true that FAT filesystems of more than 120GB cannot be mounted? Will this change? Not that I'm aware of.
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
I remember when microsoft released windows 2000 and said that 32GB was the limit and to move to ntfs. I was already using an 80GB drive and the windows 95 manual also contradicted the claims. Windows will not create FAT filesystems larger than 32GB, so in that sense that is the limit. It will read and write to existing filesystems however. There is a certain amount of wisdom on their part for discouraging use of enormous FAT filesystems.
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:40:24AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: I remember when microsoft released windows 2000 and said that 32GB was the limit and to move to ntfs. I was already using an 80GB drive and the windows 95 manual also contradicted the claims. Windows will not create FAT filesystems larger than 32GB, so in that sense that is the limit. It will read and write to existing filesystems however. There is a certain amount of wisdom on their part for discouraging use of enormous FAT filesystems. I have a 500GB FAT32 USB disk that I had to create from OpenBSD since as you say Windows will not create it. I can use it from in my case Windows XP but it take about 2-3 minutes of hard work on the drive when I plug it in before Windows detects it; I guess they do some fsck light at plug in time. Then it works. I can not use it from OpenBSD, though, because (can not remember exactly) fsck needs more memory than I have to load the FAT table and mount will not mount it since it seems dirty... -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:05:36 +0100 Raimo Niskanen wrote: I have a 500GB FAT32 USB disk that I had to create from OpenBSD since as you say Windows will not create it. I just tried a 2TB dosfs made by Linux and it worked just fine copying the openbsd songs onto it :-) Not a long test but worked. Shame the proprietary video surveilance machine it was setup for is a piece of shit. It runs linux but only works with tiny msdos filesystems.
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
That's true, you can't create big FAT32 partitions under Windows, but you can use proprietary software and Windows accepts these partitions. Few days ago I had an issue with 135GB FAT32 partition which worked fine on Windows, but not OpenBSD. I could mount it without errors but directory listing was only giving me ~10 strange file names with all kinds of weird symbols, in other words partition was unusable, and fsck_msdos failed with No space for FAT (Cannot allocate memory).. On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Raimo Niskanen raimo+open...@erix.ericsson.se wrote: On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 09:40:24AM -0500, Ted Unangst wrote: I remember when microsoft released windows 2000 and said that 32GB was the limit and to move to ntfs. I was already using an 80GB drive and the windows 95 manual also contradicted the claims. Windows will not create FAT filesystems larger than 32GB, so in that sense that is the limit. It will read and write to existing filesystems however. There is a certain amount of wisdom on their part for discouraging use of enormous FAT filesystems. I have a 500GB FAT32 USB disk that I had to create from OpenBSD since as you say Windows will not create it. I can use it from in my case Windows XP but it take about 2-3 minutes of hard work on the drive when I plug it in before Windows detects it; I guess they do some fsck light at plug in time. Then it works. I can not use it from OpenBSD, though, because (can not remember exactly) fsck needs more memory than I have to load the FAT table and mount will not mount it since it seems dirty... -- / Raimo Niskanen, Erlang/OTP, Ericsson AB
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
On Mon, 2011-11-28 at 11:20 +, sc...@web.de wrote: Well, after reading Trouble with large files in current snapshot, I would like to ask something different: it is true that FAT filesystems of more than 120GB cannot be mounted? Will this change? I did successfully create and mount 160 Gb volume under OpenBSD. It was a year ago, I think. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Re: Mounting big FAT filesystems
pat pkugri...@gmail.com wrote: I could mount it [in OpenBSD] without errors but directory listing was only giving me ~10 strange file names with all kinds of weird symbols, That was also my experience. Mount command took time, and the directory was as you described it. I immediatly unmounted the disc, and mounted it in Linux [with which I created the fat fs]: it seems it was not damaged. I did it with OpenBSD 4.8, perhaps the newer releases have not this problem? Rodrigo.
Re: gkrellm and uuid's for filesystems
* John Tate j...@johntate.org [2011-11-19 11:46+1100]: Also, where do I get started on learning to make ports? http://openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html. I have a hard time understanding you were unable to find docs on this.
gkrellm and uuid's for filesystems
Misc/Ports, gkrellm has an OpenBSD specific shortcoming. Depending on what USB drives are plugged in, my softraid could be anywhere between sd2-sd6. gkrellm needs to be reconfigured every time. The OpenBSD port of gkrellm could instead support the uuids, and always display my two physical AHCI drives and the softraid. It's a little annoying having to configure gkrellm after every different boot scenario. Also, where do I get started on learning to make ports? I don't necessarily mean contribute but where are the docs for a wannabe contributor? John Also this leads nowhere, so I couldn't find gkrellm's maintainer: http://openports.se/sysutils/gkrellm -- www.johntate.org
Re: gkrellm and uuid's for filesystems
On 19/11/2011, at 1:46 PM, John Tate wrote: Misc/Ports, gkrellm has an OpenBSD specific shortcoming. Depending on what USB drives are plugged in, my softraid could be anywhere between sd2-sd6. gkrellm needs to be reconfigured every time. The OpenBSD port of gkrellm could instead support the uuids, and always display my two physical AHCI drives and the softraid. It's a little annoying having to configure gkrellm after every different boot scenario. Also, where do I get started on learning to make ports? I don't necessarily mean contribute but where are the docs for a wannabe contributor? OpenBSD is (rightly) famed for the man pages: man ports Which also links you to the excellent FAQs. openports.se is a very useful resource and I'm glad it is there - but my understanding is that it is not an official part of the project. You might also want to read this ... http://www.openbsd.org/mail.html HTH John Also this leads nowhere, so I couldn't find gkrellm's maintainer: http://openports.se/sysutils/gkrellm -- www.johntate.org
Re: gkrellm and uuid's for filesystems
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:46 AM, John Tate j...@johntate.org wrote: Misc/Ports, gkrellm has an OpenBSD specific shortcoming. Depending on what USB drives are plugged in, my softraid could be anywhere between sd2-sd6. gkrellm needs to be reconfigured every time. The OpenBSD port of gkrellm could instead support the uuids, and always display my two physical AHCI drives and the softraid. It's a little annoying having to configure gkrellm after every different boot scenario. Also, where do I get started on learning to make ports? I don't necessarily mean contribute but where are the docs for a wannabe contributor? Everything is where it is supposed to be http://www.openbsd.org/faq/ports/index.html and this one may be of some help too http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon07-portstutorial/ John Also this leads nowhere, so I couldn't find gkrellm's maintainer: http://openports.se/sysutils/gkrellm -- www.johntate.org
Re: another hint for fsck for large filesystems
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
You should be able to get the same result
using proper values for fs_passno in /etc/fstab.
One would hope so, but I don't think that's the case.
First, the man page says
the root filesystem should be specified with
a fs_passno of 1, and other filesystems
should have a fs_passno of 2. Filesystems
within a drive will be checked sequentially,
but filesystems on different drives will be
checked at the same time to utilize
parallelism available in the hardware.
Second, in fsck/preen.c I see a construct like this
for (passno = 1; passno = 2; passno++) {
...
... if (passno == 2 fs-fs_passno 1) {
For some reason, many years ago, fsck was optimized to run in parallel for
efficiency. It's unfortunate that the fstab file can't be used to provide
better control over the parallelism.
Re: another hint for fsck for large filesystems
Bohdan Tashchuk wrote:
--- On Wed, 1/6/10, Alexander Hall alexan...@beard.se wrote:
You should be able to get the same result using proper values for
fs_passno in /etc/fstab.
One would hope so, but I don't think that's the case.
First, the man page says
the root filesystem should be specified with a fs_passno of 1, and
other filesystems should have a fs_passno of 2. Filesystems within a
drive will be checked sequentially, but filesystems on different
drives will be checked at the same time to utilize parallelism
available in the hardware.
Second, in fsck/preen.c I see a construct like this
for (passno = 1; passno = 2; passno++) { ... ... if (passno == 2
fs-fs_passno 1) {
Oh yes it seems you're right, and it goes a long way back too. I wonder
if it ever worked the way I've always interpreted the man page...
For some reason, many years ago, fsck was optimized to run in
parallel for efficiency. It's unfortunate that the fstab file can't
be used to provide better control over the parallelism.
Re: another hint for fsck for large filesystems
Bohdan Tashchuk wrote: Sorry I'm not subscribed to the misc@ list, I read on a web archive. So I can't reply directly to the recent discussion about how to do newfs / fsck etc on large file systems (memory issue). I have one box with relatively limited memory and had to make a change directly to /etc/rc (yes, horrors)!. The change is fsck -p -l 1 This keeps fsck from checking more than one disk in parallel. You should be able to get the same result using proper values for fs_passno in /etc/fstab. $ man fstab /passno /Alexander
another hint for fsck for large filesystems
Sorry I'm not subscribed to the misc@ list, I read on a web archive. So I can't reply directly to the recent discussion about how to do newfs / fsck etc on large file systems (memory issue). I have one box with relatively limited memory and had to make a change directly to /etc/rc (yes, horrors)!. The change is fsck -p -l 1 This keeps fsck from checking more than one disk in parallel.
which filesystems are local?
This is probably trivial, but what is the most elegant way to find out which of the currently mounted filesystems are local, ie. mounted off a local disk? A simple mount | grep ' (local' works for me, but is there a better way (besides mount -t and listing the 'local' FS types)? Jan
Re: which filesystems are local?
The format of the mount point path is a good place to start. A samba-based share would be shlight:PID, an NFS mount would be hostname:/path/to/share etc. On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote: This is probably trivial, but what is the most elegant way to find out which of the currently mounted filesystems are local, ie. mounted off a local disk? A simple mount | grep ' (local' works for me, but is there a better way (besides mount -t and listing the 'local' FS types)? Jan -- Aaron Mason - Programmer, open source addict - Oh, why does everything I whip leave me?
Re: which filesystems are local?
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote: This is probably trivial, but what is the most elegant way to find out which of the currently mounted filesystems are local, ie. mounted off a local disk? Careful: how strongly wedded to the idea that local==local disk? OpenBSD sets the 'local' flag on mfs mounts, where there isn't *any* disk... A simple mount | grep ' (local' That fails if there's a flag before 'local', such as 'asynchronous'. works for me, but is there a better way (besides mount -t and listing the 'local' FS types)? df -l Philip Guenther
Re: which filesystems are local?
Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote: This is probably trivial, but what is the most elegant way to find out which of the currently mounted filesystems are local, ie. mounted off a local disk? A simple mount | grep ' (local' works for me, but is there a better way (besides mount -t and listing the 'local' FS types)? As long as you dont't tell us what you'd like to do: man find find -fstype local -- No Swen today, my love has gone away My mailbox stands for lorn, a symbol of the dawn
Re: Corny shit with filesystems + mp3 player
2009/2/12 Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, auto709...@hushmail.com wrote: Is it possible to end up with a FAT 12 file system + some kind of Netware (Novell or otherwise) on a hard drive which used to be a hard drive with one partition through plugging in an Intenso Video Voyager with a MicroSDHC? Yup. Apologies for the late and daft question, but I'm intrigued: Are you saying you plugged in a certain mass storage device (via USB?), and that somehow replaced the partition table on your (non-flash?) hard disk? How? I didn't seem to find relevant info by googling. Just curious. regards, --ropers
Corny shit with filesystems + mp3 player
Is it possible to end up with a FAT 12 file system + some kind of Netware (Novell or otherwise) on a hard drive which used to be a hard drive with one partition through plugging in an Intenso Video Voyager with a MicroSDHC? It once was a functioning install...
Re: Encrypted filesystems
In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=121259415410042w=1, Alphons Fonz van Werven asked Are there any means of encrypting filesystems other than using cryptfs plus vnode? As far as I could find out, the latter imposes a size limit of roughly 8GB which is acceptable for most partitions but not all of them. It may not be what you want, but cfs (ports/packages) is a cryptographic filesystem which runs outside the kernel. It works at the _file_ level (on top of a standard filesystem), with encryption keys specified on a per-directory-tree basis, so doesn't care about the filesystem size. I've been using cfs for about 15 years (first 7 on SunOS, last 8 on OpenBSD), and am generally happy with it. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg [remove -animal to reply] [EMAIL PROTECTED] School of Mathematics, U of Southampton, England Space travel is utter bilge -- common misquote of UK Astronomer Royal Richard Woolley's remarks of 1956 All this writing about space travel is utter bilge. To go to the moon would cost as much as a major war. -- what he actually said
Re: Encrypted filesystems
Hey, Jonathan Thornburg schrieb: In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=121259415410042w=1, Alphons Fonz van Werven asked Are there any means of encrypting filesystems other than using cryptfs plus vnode? As far as I could find out, the latter imposes a size limit of roughly 8GB which is acceptable for most partitions but not all of them. It may not be what you want, but cfs (ports/packages) is a cryptographic filesystem which runs outside the kernel. It works at the _file_ level (on top of a standard filesystem), with encryption keys specified on a per-directory-tree basis, so doesn't care about the filesystem size. I've been using cfs for about 15 years (first 7 on SunOS, last 8 on OpenBSD), and am generally happy with it. I never ran into a partition size limit with vnconfig on OpenBSD... largest currently encrypted HDD is a 160 GB secondary notebook drive, all one partition, containing a traveling backup of some stuff. ;-) cfs on the other hand... never really got it to work reliable. Michael
Encrypted filesystems
Hello, I hope this is not a FAQ, but my homework so far (which includes reading the FAQ and the installation guide as well as just Googling) hasn't provided an answer. Are there any means of encrypting filesystems other than using cryptfs plus vnode? As far as I could find out, the latter imposes a size limit of roughly 8GB which is acceptable for most partitions but not all of them. For example, I recently installed the most recent version of Slackware Linux on a laptop (don't blame me, it's what the owner wanted) and I was able to have everything except /boot encrypted, including system partitions such as /, without any size limits other than that of the fstype itself. Thanks in advance, Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: Encrypted filesystems
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:34:11 +, Alphons \Fonz\ van Werven wrote Are there any means of encrypting filesystems other than using cryptfs plus vnode? As far as I could find out, the latter imposes a size limit of roughly 8GB which is acceptable for most partitions but not all of them. Fonz, There's no cryptfs in OpenBSD's ports tree. In OpenBSD, either vnconfig(8) or mount_vnd(8) are used to mount filesystem images, with or without encryption. FAQ 14.10 shows an example of mounting a CD9660 filesystem, but any valid filesystem structure may be mounted this way. As far as I know, there are no size restrictions other than the limits of the chosen filesystem.
Re: Encrypted filesystems
Josh Grosse wrote: There's no cryptfs in OpenBSD's ports tree. Sorry - I must have been using FreeBSD for too long ;-) In OpenBSD, either vnconfig(8) or mount_vnd(8) are used to mount filesystem images, with or without encryption. Manpages found - thanks. Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: Encrypted filesystems
On 4-Jun-08, at 10:09 AM, Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Josh Grosse wrote: There's no cryptfs in OpenBSD's ports tree. Sorry - I must have been using FreeBSD for too long ;-) In OpenBSD, either vnconfig(8) or mount_vnd(8) are used to mount filesystem images, with or without encryption. Manpages found - thanks. This may be of use, depending on your ultimate goal regarding disk encryption. https://www.mainframe.cx/~ckuethe/encrypted_disks.html This thread is a good read as well: http://marc.info/?t=11916631661r=1w=2 Cheers Scott
Copying/Moving files to msdos filesystems
Hi, You get this error when putting files on a msdos filesystem: mv: /mnt/usb/PRO2KXP.exe: set owner/group: Invalid argument Do you think this should be ommitted in the case of an msdos filesystem, as it is obvious that the permissions are not compatible. I use the rox file manager to move files sometimes, and it flags these errors and highlights them red. I have developed the habit of dismissing the error box, possibly ignoring real useful errors. What do you think? -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: Copying/Moving files to msdos filesystems
On 10/18/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You get this error when putting files on a msdos filesystem: mv: /mnt/usb/PRO2KXP.exe: set owner/group: Invalid argument Do you think this should be ommitted in the case of an msdos filesystem, as it is obvious that the permissions are not compatible. If the duplication of the file characteristics fails for any reason, mv shall write a diagnostic message to standard error, but this failure shall not cause mv to modify its exit status. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/mv.html
Re: Copying/Moving files to msdos filesystems
Hi, On 18/10/2007, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you think this should be ommitted in the case of an msdos filesystem, as it is obvious that the permissions are not compatible. If the duplication of the file characteristics fails for any reason, mv shall write a diagnostic message to standard error, but this failure shall not cause mv to modify its exit status. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/mv.html Yeh, thats good enough for me :P -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: You can't export non-ffs filesystems with NFS, and it isn't documented
Han Boetes wrote: Alexander Hall wrote: The problem is that nfs shares does not traverse file system mount points once initialized. Since nfs probably was started prior to mounting the msdos partition (with the noauto option in /etc/fstab), nfs would only share the contents of the mount point directory itself. A ``pkill -HUP mountd'' might help after mounting the msdos file system, in order to make mountd aware of the new file system overriding the mount point directory. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like you expect. I stand corrected at this point. The file system to share is not ultimately determined at the time of mountd start up or (re-)configuration. However, it seems to be determined at the time of the nfs mount, so if the mount was performed prior to mounting the msdos file system, the client would only have access to the parent file system. I could not read from your earlier posts if this was the case. Some minor testing seem to indicate that the ``kill -HUP'' makes no difference at all unless the exports file has been changed. On the OpenBSD server: ~% grep usb /etc/fstab /dev/sd0i /mnt/usb msdos rw,nodev,nosuid,noauto,noexec0 0 ~% grep usb /etc/exports /mnt/usb -maproot=han:nfs marsupilami ~% mount |grep usb /dev/sd0i on /mnt/usb type msdos (NFS exported, local, uid=1000, gid=0) ~% sudo pkill -HUP mountd ~% ls /mnt/usb foofile On the linux client: ~% mount G /mnt/usb haddock:/mnt/usb on /mnt/usb type nfs (rw,addr=172.16.11.1) ~% ls /mnt/usb I am not sure here either which mount (nfs vs msdos) was performed first. /Alexander
Re: You can't export non-ffs filesystems with NFS, and it isn't documented
Alexander Hall wrote: The problem is that nfs shares does not traverse file system mount points once initialized. Since nfs probably was started prior to mounting the msdos partition (with the noauto option in /etc/fstab), nfs would only share the contents of the mount point directory itself. A ``pkill -HUP mountd'' might help after mounting the msdos file system, in order to make mountd aware of the new file system overriding the mount point directory. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like you expect. On the OpenBSD server: ~% grep usb /etc/fstab /dev/sd0i /mnt/usb msdos rw,nodev,nosuid,noauto,noexec0 0 ~% grep usb /etc/exports /mnt/usb -maproot=han:nfs marsupilami ~% mount |grep usb /dev/sd0i on /mnt/usb type msdos (NFS exported, local, uid=1000, gid=0) ~% sudo pkill -HUP mountd ~% ls /mnt/usb foofile On the linux client: ~% mount G /mnt/usb haddock:/mnt/usb on /mnt/usb type nfs (rw,addr=172.16.11.1) ~% ls /mnt/usb # Han
Re: You can't export non-ffs filesystems with NFS, and it isn't documented
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 11:28:59AM +0159, Han Boetes wrote: ~% grep usb /etc/fstab /dev/sd0i /mnt/usb msdos rw,nodev,nosuid,noauto,noexec0 0 ~% grep usb /etc/exports /mnt/usb -maproot=han:nfs marsupilami ~% mount |grep usb /dev/sd0i on /mnt/usb type msdos (NFS exported, local, uid=1000, gid=0) ~% sudo pkill -HUP mountd ~% ls /mnt/usb foofile On the linux client: ~% mount G /mnt/usb haddock:/mnt/usb on /mnt/usb type nfs (rw,addr=172.16.11.1) ~% ls /mnt/usb You have to force the linux client to use NFS version 2: $ mount -o nfsvers=2 server:/foo/bar /mnt/baz There are 2 different bugs in the NFSv3 server implementation in OpenBSD which prevent a) exported msdosfs, ntfs probably other non-unix filesystems b) exported ext2fs filesystems from working properly. For a) there's a fix in NetBSD(sys/nfs/nfs_serv.c:2831). For b) there's a fix in the kernel/5365 PR.
Re: You can't export non-ffs filesystems with NFS, and it isn't documented
[ Answering to a post from two and a half years back. :-) I was fiddling with nfs and stuff and remembered this thread. While reading it, I found out what the problem was. I realize (or at least hope) that Han is not still troubleshooting this issue, but for the archives... :-) ] Han Boetes wrote: Julian Leyh wrote: Han Boetes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just noticed once again you can't export non-ffs filesystems with NFS. Well you can export them, but after mounting the partition on the client you won't see any files. I can't verify this behavior... mounted a msdos filesystem (usb stick) and exported it via nfs. i could mount and view all files on target nfs client. (server and client both -current). Odd... Could you be so kind to show me the lines of the msdos partition in /etc/fstab and in exports? I have: ~% grep msdos /etc/fstab /dev/sd0a /mnt/usb msdos rw,nodev,nosuid,noatime,noauto 0 0 ~% grep usb /etc/exports /mnt/usb/ -mapall=han:nfs marsupilami The problem is that nfs shares does not traverse file system mount points once initialized. Since nfs probably was started prior to mounting the msdos partition (with the noauto option in /etc/fstab), nfs would only share the contents of the mount point directory itself. A ``pkill -HUP mountd'' might help after mounting the msdos file system, in order to make mountd aware of the new file system overriding the mount point directory. /Alexander
Re: filesystems?
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 11:54:59PM +0200, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Watch out for USB sticks!! Many now are coming with 'U3' - a piece of crap piece of s/w that will try to crash your machine whenever you insert it. oh, so that's what happened when I put my new 4GB USB stick into a Windows machine. On OpenBSD, it just mounted like regular (but looking at messages right now it actually shows up as an emulated CD plus the regular drive), while on Windows it went through several minutes of things 'just happening' and requiring a reboot. Here's a link to the removal page from U3: http://www.u3.com/uninstall/ ah, thanks for the link. Is it possible to remove it with fdisk/disklabel/newfs_msdos, or is it more insidious than that? -- Mark
Re: filesystems?
At 08:52 AM 9/11/2007 -0600, Mark Zimmerman wrote: Here's a link to the removal page from U3: http://www.u3.com/uninstall/ ah, thanks for the link. Is it possible to remove it with fdisk/disklabel/newfs_msdos, or is it more insidious than that? -- Mark Last time I tried to disklabel a U3 drive, it trashed it. Might have been an error in procedure, but the removal is pretty quick (assuming you have a Windoze machine available). The only trick I found is to start the remove utility at the exact same time you insert the USB drive, which prevents it from trying to install it's garbage. (The utility will not start unless the stick is installed, however if you install the stick before running the remove you risk trashing the machine.) Lee
Re: filesystems?
L. V. Lammert wrote: [...] Last time I tried to disklabel a U3 drive, it trashed it. Might have been an error in procedure, but the removal is pretty quick (assuming you have a Windoze machine available). The only trick I found is to start the remove utility at the exact same time you insert the USB drive, which prevents it from trying to install it's garbage. Holding down shift on media insertion prevents Windows from autorunning it (or so I hear from a reliable source). -- David Given [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: filesystems?
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 10:36:50AM -0500, L. V. Lammert wrote: At 08:52 AM 9/11/2007 -0600, Mark Zimmerman wrote: Here's a link to the removal page from U3: http://www.u3.com/uninstall/ ah, thanks for the link. Is it possible to remove it with fdisk/disklabel/newfs_msdos, or is it more insidious than that? -- Mark Last time I tried to disklabel a U3 drive, it trashed it. Might have been an error in procedure, but the removal is pretty quick (assuming you have a Windoze machine available). The only trick I found is to start the remove utility at the exact same time you insert the USB drive, which prevents it from trying to install it's garbage. (The utility will not start unless the stick is installed, however if you install the stick before running the remove you risk trashing the machine.) Thanks for the warning. For me, since I have no Windows machine, this translates into: 1. Never buy a U3 drive. 2. Continue to never have a Windows machine. -- Mark
Re: filesystems?
I think that the best choice is FAT32 it will works out-of-the-box on all systems a usb stick isn't a device that must have some performance IMHO 2007/9/8, Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 20:51 -0400, stan wrote: I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these various OS's? There do exist ext2fs drivers for Windows; obviously anything which boots the kernel, Linux, can read and write ext2fs. There may well exist UFS drivers for Windows but I haven't looked. (I only use OpenBSD on my firewall/router.) If you can live with the limitations of FAT32, then you may want to use that; fragmentation really isn't as much of an issue if it's a solid state device (you don't say). I personally find it ludicrous not to be able to use a filename on a Unix-like OS that wasn't legal in Microsoft MS-DOS 1.0 (e.g. filenames with colons). -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- .''`. Andrea Ferraresi [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : irc.FreeNode.net #lslug | JID [EMAIL PROTECTED] . `` Registered Linux user #388877 and Machine #289399 `- WebMaster http://www.ls-lug.org
Re: filesystems?
At 10:33 PM 9/10/2007 +0200, Andrea Ferraresi wrote: I think that the best choice is FAT32 it will works out-of-the-box on all systems a usb stick isn't a device that must have some performance IMHO Watch out for USB sticks!! Many now are coming with 'U3' - a piece of crap piece of s/w that will try to crash your machine whenever you insert it. Here's a link to the removal page from U3: http://www.u3.com/uninstall/ Lee
Re: filesystems?
L. V. Lammert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Watch out for USB sticks!! Many now are coming with 'U3' - a piece of crap piece of s/w that will try to crash your machine whenever you insert it. oh, so that's what happened when I put my new 4GB USB stick into a Windows machine. On OpenBSD, it just mounted like regular (but looking at messages right now it actually shows up as an emulated CD plus the regular drive), while on Windows it went through several minutes of things 'just happening' and requiring a reboot. Here's a link to the removal page from U3: http://www.u3.com/uninstall/ ah, thanks for the link. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: filesystems?
On 2007/09/10 23:54, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: oh, so that's what happened when I put my new 4GB USB stick into a Windows machine. On OpenBSD, it just mounted like regular (but looking at messages right now it actually shows up as an emulated CD plus the regular drive) Kinda like huawei e220 (except that one hides the real device until it's poked by a driver). I think this method of not having to ship a CDROM with the devices will become the norm very quickly.
Re: filesystems?
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/09/10 23:54, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: oh, so that's what happened when I put my new 4GB USB stick into a Windows machine. On OpenBSD, it just mounted like regular (but looking at messages right now it actually shows up as an emulated CD plus the regular drive) Kinda like huawei e220 (except that one hides the real device until it's poked by a driver). I think this method of not having to ship a CDROM with the devices will become the norm very quickly. CDROM images for drivers [as a reference] are fine, .. but U3 *autoinstalls* a driver on the host system! Any machine that detects the autorun is susceptable to being hosed by U3, hence the warning. The CD is not for drivers, but it's for installing THEIR stupid SW on YOUR machine on every insertion. If the prices weren't so low, it wouldn't be worth purchasing them. Lee
Re: filesystems?
On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Jona Joachim wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:17:44 +0200 Martin SchrC6der [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FAT32. And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to it. FreeBSD can also write NTFS using the ntfs-3g driver together with fusefs. Jona Actually, this is tenative at best. Though some have had success both reading from and writing to various NTFS versions, it's not really a safe thing to do. It's still an undocumented file system, and many typical operations fail disastrously. This week I wasted two different XP installations by attempting to resize the NTFS partition (shrink) with two different open source tools (PartitionLogic and GParted). (mumble mumble mumble about the crap friends ask me to do on an os that I don't run.) jcr
Re: filesystems?
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 07:11:47 -0700 J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Jona Joachim wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:17:44 +0200 Martin SchrC6der [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FAT32. And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to it. FreeBSD can also write NTFS using the ntfs-3g driver together with fusefs. Jona Actually, this is tenative at best. Though some have had success both reading from and writing to various NTFS versions, it's not really a safe thing to do. It's still an undocumented file system, and many typical operations fail disastrously. This week I wasted two different XP installations by attempting to resize the NTFS partition (shrink) with two different open source tools (PartitionLogic and GParted). I never really used it, I think I just tested it once. On their site they say: The driver is in STABLE status since February 2007, after twelve years of development so I thought it was ok. I had some terrible crashes with sshfs on FreeBSD. I think the FreeBSD fuse kernel module is a bit flaky. I never tried it on Linux. Best regards, Jona
Re: filesystems?
On 9/6/07, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 07:11:47 -0700
J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Jona Joachim wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:17:44 +0200
Martin SchrC6der [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FAT32.
And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to
it.
FreeBSD can also write NTFS using the ntfs-3g driver together with
fusefs.
Jona
Actually, this is tenative at best. Though some have had success both
reading from and writing to various NTFS versions, it's not really a
safe thing to do. It's still an undocumented file system, and many
typical operations fail disastrously. This week I wasted two
different XP installations by attempting to resize the NTFS partition
(shrink) with two different open source tools (PartitionLogic and
GParted).
I never really used it, I think I just tested it once.
On their site they say: The driver is in STABLE status since February
2007, after twelve years of development so I thought it was ok.
I had some terrible crashes with sshfs on FreeBSD. I think the FreeBSD
fuse kernel module is a bit flaky. I never tried it on Linux.
How stable a driver is doesn't indicate the actual level of success
writing {safely,properly,sanely} to a problematic filesystem.like
NTFS. It may successfully corrupt data without crashing or throwing
errors at all.
DS
Re: filesystems?
I certainly wouldn't try writing to NTFS filesystem on any system other then
winnt especially in production.
I don't think it's actually possible to
shrink NTFS partition in a Microsoft supported way only extend it with
diskpart.
S.
- Original Message
From: Darren Spruell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Misc OpenBSD
misc@openbsd.org
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2007 1:47:31 PM
Subject: Re:
filesystems?
On 9/6/07, Jona Joachim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep
2007 07:11:47 -0700
J.C. Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 04 September 2007, Jona Joachim wrote:
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007
18:17:44 +0200
Martin SchrC6der [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
FAT32.
And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to
it.
FreeBSD can also write NTFS using the ntfs-3g driver
together with
fusefs.
Jona
Actually, this is
tenative at best. Though some have had success both
reading from and
writing to various NTFS versions, it's not really a
safe thing to do. It's
still an undocumented file system, and many
typical operations fail
disastrously. This week I wasted two
different XP installations by
attempting to resize the NTFS partition
(shrink) with two different open
source tools (PartitionLogic and
GParted).
I never really used it, I
think I just tested it once.
On their site they say: The driver is in
STABLE status since February
2007, after twelve years of development so I
thought it was ok.
I had some terrible crashes with sshfs on FreeBSD. I
think the FreeBSD
fuse kernel module is a bit flaky. I never tried it on
Linux.
How stable a driver is doesn't indicate the actual level of success
writing {safely,properly,sanely} to a problematic filesystem.like
NTFS. It may
successfully corrupt data without crashing or throwing
errors at all.
DS
_
___
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's
updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.
http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow
Re: filesystems?
Stanislav Ovcharenko wrote: I don't think it's actually possible to shrink NTFS partition in a Microsoft supported way only extend it with diskpart. WinXP and later support shrinking disks. http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsVista/en/library/a6680b96-28df-4308-949d-bb3f91ca5d4b1033.mspx
Re: filesystems?
Personally, ext2 should be an excellent choice; efficient disk usage and read/write support in all those OSes, including Windows, http://fs-driver.org/ I've been using that driver on Windows XP for a while now, so far no errors. It's not open source or anything unfortunately; but the open source ext2-on-Winodws projects seem to be riddled with errors, ironically.
Re: filesystems?
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 18:17:44 +0200 Martin SchrC6der [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FAT32. And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to it. FreeBSD can also write NTFS using the ntfs-3g driver together with fusefs. Jona -- I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free. Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord Confusion
Re: filesystems?
Le mardi 04 septembre 2007 C 00:23 +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD a C)crit : Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. Tonnerre No I didn't. Is it so fun? :) I didn't say fat32 is a good FS but IMHO it's a FS with less constraints than other ones. Imagine your network is down or you don't remember the name of the driver and you need to access to the data stored on a FFS disk from a new win box. I would say it's also fun :) To avoid this problem, you can create a small fat partition, store all the drivers (ext, ufs, ...) on it, and create multiple ufs/ext/.. partitions to prevent huge data loss. But it depends on the use you will have of your disk.
Re: filesystems?
Hi! On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 10:48:27PM -0400, stan wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:22:47PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 12:23:34AM +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. I would suggest that the OP be very specific with what is needed. What size of filesystem? Which operating systems need to read only and which to read and write. Given how flexible Linux and OBSD are, I would guess that the limit will be what can windows do. I don't know since I only used windows 3.1 for some games when I wasn't running OS/2. For 7 years its been Debian and now I'm transitioning to OBSD. I never have to interoperate with windows users. OK, let's eliminate Windows from the requiremant. Now we have OpenBSD, Linux, and FreeBSD in order of importance. All 3 need read/write access. I will be using this to move data, and I want to be able to keep various places in sync, using rsync. So modification date, and file name retention are important. Where does that lead us? For me, ext2 works fine, on a USB hard drive. Initialized it under OpenBSD: First partitioned it into 2 primary partitions, one OpenBSD, one ext2. Edited the disklabel accordingly (have the ext2 on slice i). newfs'ed (a as ffs, mostly for backup purposes for OpenBSD boxen only, i.e. no respect for other OS's needs; i as ext2, using mke2fs from the e2fsprogs port/package). At least on OpenBSD and on Linux it has worked fine up to now, both reading and writing on both platforms. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: filesystems?
Salut, On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 01:10:14PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: No I didn't. Is it so fun? :) Oh yes. By the way, I must say that for additional fun, the directory names were A, B, C, ..., Y, Z. Gives you quite something to search for. Tonnerre [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: filesystems?
Also you can use ext2(3) filesystem for this purpose: BSD works quite OK with it (though with no journal support), Linux - ow, do you think it's not?:) - and there are some tools in the Internet to be able to read ext2 from Windows. Don't know about writing: you need to investigate it by yourself. 2007/9/3, stan [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these various OS's? -- I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything. I am the manager of all of Customer Service.
Re: filesystems?
Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:46:37AM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Also you can use ext2(3) filesystem for this purpose: BSD works quite OK with it (though with no journal support), Linux - ow, do you think it's not?:) - and there are some tools in the Internet to be able to read ext2 from Windows. Don't know about writing: you need to investigate it by yourself. The same goes for ffs/ufs Tonnerre [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: filesystems?
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:10:52 +0300 Ihar Hrachyshka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/3, Tonnerre LOMBARD [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:46:37AM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Also you can use ext2(3) filesystem for this purpose: BSD works quite OK with it (though with no journal support), Linux - ow, do you think it's not?:) - and there are some tools in the Internet to be able to read ext2 from Windows. Don't know about writing: you need to investigate it by yourself. The same goes for ffs/ufs Ow, please provide me with the link to Windows UFS software. I'll be glad to see it by myself. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ffsdrv/ -- I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free. Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord Confusion
Re: filesystems?
I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these various OS's? By the way, if you want to use OpenBSD to format a USB drive as FAT32, then edit the MBR partition table as described at http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118379731620389 and run newfs_msdos # newfs_msdos -F 32 -u 63 /dev/rsd0i (note, this line assumes that the drive is device sd0)
Re: filesystems?
Le lundi 03 septembre 2007 C 16:10 +0200, Jona Joachim a C)crit : On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:10:52 +0300 Ihar Hrachyshka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/3, Tonnerre LOMBARD [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 08:46:37AM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: Also you can use ext2(3) filesystem for this purpose: BSD works quite OK with it (though with no journal support), Linux - ow, do you think it's not?:) - and there are some tools in the Internet to be able to read ext2 from Windows. Don't know about writing: you need to investigate it by yourself. The same goes for ffs/ufs Ow, please provide me with the link to Windows UFS software. I'll be glad to see it by myself. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ffsdrv/ But linux is not abble to write to ufs/ffs file system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Fast_File_System#Implementations I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install.
Re: filesystems?
2007/9/3, The One [EMAIL PROTECTED]: FAT32. And everyone can be compiled to read NTFS; Linux can even write to it. Best Martin
Re: filesystems?
Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. Tonnerre [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: filesystems?
Ho so I'm not the only one :) On 9/4/07, Tonnerre LOMBARD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Salut, On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. Tonnerre [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature] -- Julien Cabillot
Re: filesystems?
Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: On the other hand, on some units long filenames ended up with MS-DOS style 8.3 file names until I recreated the file system on them (newfs -t msdos). Fortunately my new 4GB unit did not have that problem. Also, it's worth noting that Vista and I think XP SP2 won't create a FAT32 partition above 32gb. If you create a 32gb partition with other tools the large partition will work just fine under Windows though.
Re: filesystems?
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 12:23:34AM +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. I would suggest that the OP be very specific with what is needed. What size of filesystem? Which operating systems need to read only and which to read and write. Given how flexible Linux and OBSD are, I would guess that the limit will be what can windows do. I don't know since I only used windows 3.1 for some games when I wasn't running OS/2. For 7 years its been Debian and now I'm transitioning to OBSD. I never have to interoperate with windows users. Doug.
Re: filesystems?
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 07:22:47PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 12:23:34AM +0200, Tonnerre LOMBARD wrote: On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 05:10:57PM +0200, Eric Elena wrote: I think fat32 is a good choice: you have nothing to install. Did you ever have to debug a deep directory structure where something caused all directory to become files? On a 500G disk? Fun. I would suggest that the OP be very specific with what is needed. What size of filesystem? Which operating systems need to read only and which to read and write. Given how flexible Linux and OBSD are, I would guess that the limit will be what can windows do. I don't know since I only used windows 3.1 for some games when I wasn't running OS/2. For 7 years its been Debian and now I'm transitioning to OBSD. I never have to interoperate with windows users. OK, let's eliminate Windows from the requiremant. Now we have OpenBSD, Linux, and FreeBSD in order of importance. All 3 need read/write access. I will be using this to move data, and I want to be able to keep various places in sync, using rsync. So modification date, and file name retention are important. Where does that lead us? -- I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything. I am the manager of all of Customer Service.
filesystems?
I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these various OS's? -- I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything. I am the manager of all of Customer Service.
Re: filesystems?
FAT32. On 9/3/07, stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. What is the intersection of the sets of filesystems supported by these various OS's? -- I'm sorry, no one here has any intentions of helping you with anything. I am the manager of all of Customer Service.
Re: filesystems?
stan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm trying to decide what filesystem to use on a USB drive. I'd like to be able to access the unit from OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux, and perhaps Windows. Once Windows is in the picture, you will need to go with a Microsoft file system. Most of these drives anyway come preformatted as FAT32, so it's quite possible you don't even have to make an active choice. On the other hand, on some units long filenames ended up with MS-DOS style 8.3 file names until I recreated the file system on them (newfs -t msdos). Fortunately my new 4GB unit did not have that problem. -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.datadok.no/ http://www.nuug.no/ Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
Re: Multi terabyte filesystems
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, John Nietzsche wrote: Dear list members, is there plans for openbsd to support multi terabyte filesystems? Which release should i expect to see such support? Thanks in advance. Yes, work is being done. See http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20070601190500. In the meantime we made progress (disklabel support for large disks/partitions, large disk address support in the buffer layer and quite some userland tool diffs are committed) but the work is not finished. As things are now, even if I would commit diffs (from pedro@) I have in my tree to support 2TB filesystems, there are not very practical for actual use. As an example, with the default fragment and block size, such filesystems will need more that the maximum memory a program can take to fsck the filesystem, even on amd64. We have to solve that as well. You can help by testing -current. -Otto
Multi terabyte filesystems
Dear list members, is there plans for openbsd to support multi terabyte filesystems? Which release should i expect to see such support? Thanks in advance.
Re: Multi terabyte filesystems
Just curious, why do you need a terabyte of disk space (in one filesystem)??? Ioan Ioan Nemes 0439-405-336 +61 2 9725-0236 John Nietzsche [EMAIL PROTECTED] 16/07/2007 08:09 Dear list members, is there plans for openbsd to support multi terabyte filesystems? Which release should i expect to see such support? Thanks in advance.
Re: Multi terabyte filesystems
John Nietzsche wrote: Dear list members, is there plans for openbsd to support multi terabyte filesystems? there is desire. There is work being done. Which release should i expect to see such support? The release it is ready for. What do you want someone to say? For example, do you want me to say, It will be ready by 4.3? If so, you have two choices: 1) Base your decisions around it. (what if I'm wrong? What if it isn't ready? You are screwed.) 2) Assume I'm an idiot, and don't believe me. (why did you ask?) In short: there is no answer you can be given that will sanely make your life better. Here's your measure: when it's in -current, it will be in the next -release, unless horrible problems are found that can't be fixed in time for the release. Whether or not it is ready for your app, that you will have to decide by putting it to your own tests. File system work is scary. It requires a measure of brilliance and optimism in a rare combination. Usually when people have that much brilliance, they look at the risks and run screaming in terror. The question of why is quite valid. Most applications I can think of for multi-TB file systems could be better done with several small file systems. At work, we have an app that will create massive amounts of data over its life span, running on an OS that DOES support multi-TB partitions. With less than 300GB in use currently, people are starting to appreciate my advice to keep the partitions well under 1TB in size...and 500GB is starting to look really, really big. Nick.
Re: NFS export ext2 mounted filesystems
Hello, Did you enable portmap and nfs services in rc.conf.local? What error message are you getting on the linux client? What does showmount -e show on the server? Both enabled. I can mount /mnt/home2, but i get a Input Output error from my linux box when i try to make a 'ls /mnt/nfs/marvin/home2', the mount point of marvin:/mnt/home2 Anyway, I will invertigate go give you more details. Best regards, Frangois
