On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 05:14:23PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On 29/04/2011, at 4:48 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> >
> > Op 29 apr. 2011 om 07:00 heeft David Gwynne het volgende
> geschreven:
> >
> >> this is why i like duids:
> >
> > Is this what you get when you max out every option when order
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 00:00, David Gwynne wrote:
> this is why i like duids:
>
>
Someone is clearly overcompensating. ;)
That is a fine piece of machinery. What do you use something like
this for? VM host? Wouldn't the use of DUIDs make little difference
for you? I mean, sure, you have an sd
On 29/04/2011, at 4:48 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
>
> Op 29 apr. 2011 om 07:00 heeft David Gwynne het volgende
geschreven:
>
>> this is why i like duids:
>
> Is this what you get when you max out every option when ordering a machine?
no...
Op 29 apr. 2011 om 07:00 heeft David Gwynne het volgende
geschreven:
> this is why i like duids:
Is this what you get when you max out every option when ordering a machine?
-Otto
>
> OpenBSD 4.9-current (GENERIC.MP) #1: Fri Apr 29 14:55:51 EST 2011
>
d...@hotspare.eait.uq.edu.au:/home/dlg/src
>as nick says, this isnt a disk dependant thing. the duid is stored in the
>disklabel, so it works on any block device where the kernel can read a
>disklabel. obviously you can have duplicate duids (eg, by dding one disk to
>another) which can be a bit confusing, but we can only go so far in protec
this is why i like duids:
OpenBSD 4.9-current (GENERIC.MP) #1: Fri Apr 29 14:55:51 EST 2011
d...@hotspare.eait.uq.edu.au:/home/dlg/src/sys/arch/amd64/compile/GENERIC.
MP
real mem = 137428045824 (131061MB)
avail mem = 133755645952 (127559MB)
mainbus0 at root
bios0 at mainbus0: SMBIOS rev. 2.6 @
On 29/04/2011, at 3:33 AM, Nick Holland wrote:
> On 04/28/2011 10:58 AM, Bryan wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 19:55, David Gwynne wrote:
>>> amen.
>>>
>>> anything that helps us get away from the kernels arbitrary numbering of
>>> devices to identify disks is a good thing.
>>>
>>> dlg
>>>
>>
>
On 04/28/2011 10:58 AM, Bryan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 19:55, David Gwynne wrote:
amen.
anything that helps us get away from the kernels arbitrary numbering of
devices to identify disks is a good thing.
dlg
Would there be a reason why you wouldn't use DUIDs? Do some older
drives not
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 19:55, David Gwynne wrote:
> amen.
>
> anything that helps us get away from the kernels arbitrary numbering of
> devices to identify disks is a good thing.
>
> dlg
>
Would there be a reason why you wouldn't use DUIDs? Do some older
drives not support it, or some archs no
amen.
anything that helps us get away from the kernels arbitrary numbering of
devices to identify disks is a good thing.
dlg
On 28/04/2011, at 10:20 AM, Nick Holland wrote:
> On 04/27/11 08:27, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> Maybe you should tell us what happened and what you were expecting.
>>
>> I sa
On 04/27/11 08:27, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> Maybe you should tell us what happened and what you were expecting.
>
> I saw the check-in which stated that it was being turned on to see what
> response there is, which is all I'm doing...
>
> When installing on a system only having IDE-based drives, I
Maybe you should tell us what happened and what you were expecting.
I saw the check-in which stated that it was being turned on to see what
response there is, which is all I'm doing...
When installing on a system only having IDE-based drives, I was
expecting to not be prompted, since I don't
On 2011 Apr 26 (Tue) at 23:50:23 -0400 (-0400), Kent Watsen wrote:
:My first install was onto a USB pen drive and I thought this was brilliant.
:
:My second install was onto a fusion-based virtual machine and I was
:like WTF?
:
:I suppose that the installer can't tell if a sd root disk is
:swappabl
On 2011-04-27, Kent Watsen wrote:
> My first install was onto a USB pen drive and I thought this was brilliant.
>
> My second install was onto a fusion-based virtual machine and I was like
> WTF?
>
> I suppose that the installer can't tell if a sd root disk is swappable
> or not, but certainly i
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:50:23PM -0400, Kent Watsen wrote:
> My first install was onto a USB pen drive and I thought this was brilliant.
>
> My second install was onto a fusion-based virtual machine and I was
> like WTF?
>
> I suppose that the installer can't tell if a sd root disk is
> swappa
My first install was onto a USB pen drive and I thought this was brilliant.
My second install was onto a fusion-based virtual machine and I was like
WTF?
I suppose that the installer can't tell if a sd root disk is swappable
or not, but certainly it should know that wd is not - right? - or m
16 matches
Mail list logo
