Re: pflogd consume CPU

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 23:12:02 +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: >On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 08:06:35PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:06:54AM +0900, Miwa Susumu wrote: >> > 2016-02-07 1:15 GMT+09:00 Christos Zoulas : >> > pflogd process

How to make /etc/fstab "portable"?

Hi! This may be a stupid question but: Is there a way to make the entry for the root filesystem in /etc/fstab just match whatever the kernel used as the root FS? I prepared a NetBSD image using Anita. When I transfer it to a different hypervisor, the root FS is on sd0a, not wd0a, so the boot

Re: How to make /etc/fstab "portable"?

Hi, From: Benny Siegert , Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:03:57 +0100 > Hi! > > This may be a stupid question but: Is there a way to make the entry > for the root filesystem in /etc/fstab just match whatever the kernel > used as the root FS? > > I prepared a NetBSD image using

Re: building current

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 04:28:57PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > After cleaning the dest folder and 'make cleandir' (the latter I am not > sure is relevant, but I do it when I have problem like this) I got a full > build on both i386 and amd64 without a problem. It's feeling hit-and-miss at the

Re: How to make /etc/fstab "portable"?

Might be interesting to you https://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2013/03/13/msg007449.html --

Ancient BSD's Licensing & Trademarks when porting and/or forking V7 and/ or 2.x - 4.x BSD's

Hi, I am after some verification on my understanding with what is trademarked and the licensing terms when it comes to using source code from V7 UNIX and the 22-bit pdp-11 BSD's as well as the 32-bit VAX BSD's (as mentioned in the title) to either fork or port it to a new platform. For arguments

vxlan and/or otv users out there?

Dear list, I know that this question is not NetBSD specific per see, but I am aware that some of you out there have implemented and used vxlan-like technologies to extend networks at L2. Some have worked on it with rump [1]. $DAYJOB is currently investigating using these kind of

Re: Some success with laptop sleep (ACPI S3)

On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 12:31:33PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote: > Hello, I know a lot of people have been unable to put their laptops to > sleep and wake them back up. > I've had marginally more success with it and can do a sleep-wake cycle > once with my machine with the following changes: >

Re: How to make /etc/fstab "portable"?

ryo...@yk.rim.or.jp (Ryo ONODERA) writes: >However I have no experience about non-GPT disk. >And I do not understand naming rule about non-GPT disk partitions. There are two cases: Without DKWEDGE_METHOD_BSDLABEL There are no wedges for this disk, but NAME matches dk_name +

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

On 2016-02-08 21:30, Swift Griggs wrote: Can one use the BSD disklabel to fully replace a GPT or MBR table? I understand why folks want to move from MBR to GPT, but do the same reasons apply to BSD disklabels? In other words, is there any advantage to using GPT over BSD diskabels ? The only

Re: building current

In article <20160208095616.GA9541@quark>, Patrick Welche wrote: >On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 04:28:57PM +, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: >> After cleaning the dest folder and 'make cleandir' (the latter I am not >> sure is relevant, but I do it when I have problem like this) I got a

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

On Feb 8, 1:30pm, Swift Griggs wrote: } } Can one use the BSD disklabel to fully replace a GPT or MBR table? I } understand why folks want to move from MBR to GPT, but do the same reasons } apply to BSD disklabels? In other words, is there any advantage to using } GPT over BSD diskabels ?

Re: How to make /etc/fstab "portable"?

mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) writes: > This doesn't help for a 'portable' name. You can only have names if you > use wedges and you must assign a name to be 'portable', i.e. independent > of the driver name. > > I.e.: you use a kernel with DKWEDGE_METHOD_BSDLABEL, use the disklabel >

GPT vs BSD-label

Can one use the BSD disklabel to fully replace a GPT or MBR table? I understand why folks want to move from MBR to GPT, but do the same reasons apply to BSD disklabels? In other words, is there any advantage to using GPT over BSD diskabels ? The only thing I can think of is that the

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, John Nemeth wrote: Standard BSD disklabels have the same limitation as MBRs as they use 32-bit numbers for partition start and size. I take it that there is more to it than that... ? I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, but simply changing the long to a int64_t I suppose has

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

This will give you some insight about the pains of trying to use disklabel on larger disks. However If you add another drive later, I see no reason why it couldn't be gpt, and the current one mbr. - Original Message - From: Swift Griggs To:

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

This will give you some insight about the pains of trying to use disklabel on larger disks. However If you add another drive later, I see no reason why it couldn't be gpt, and the current one mbr. https://wiki.netbsd.org/users/mlelstv/using-large-disks/ - Original Message - From:

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

In article <201602082342.u18Ngfw5029915@server>, John Nemeth wrote: >On Feb 8, 3:02pm, Swift Griggs wrote: >} On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, John Nemeth wrote: >} > Standard BSD disklabels have the same limitation as MBRs as they use >} > 32-bit numbers for partition start and size. >}

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

John Nemeth writes: > BTW, disklabels were released with 4.3BSD-Tahoe, which was > released in June 1988 (28 years ago). There were plenty of versions > of BSD prior to that which didn't support disklabel. The first > release of BSD was in 1977, so it took 11 years for

Re: History behind pkgsrc 'biology' category

> On 6 Feb 2016, at 11:19 PM, matthew sporleder wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Swift Griggs wrote: >> >> Again, not complaining. I think it's quirky and cool. I'm just curious. > > […] > If you recall, the late 90's and early 2000's saw

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

On Feb 8, 3:02pm, Swift Griggs wrote: } On Mon, 8 Feb 2016, John Nemeth wrote: } > Standard BSD disklabels have the same limitation as MBRs as they use } > 32-bit numbers for partition start and size. } } I take it that there is more to it than that... ? I'm sure I'm } over-simplifying, but