Re: GPT vs BSD-label

2016-02-09 Thread Michael van Elst
swiftgri...@gmail.com (Swift Griggs) writes: >/dev/sda1 vs /dev/sd1a >So, they use letters first, then numbers. Actually that gets more and more unusuable in Linux. You need to access disks as /dev/disk/by-/YY and partitions with something like /dev/disk/by-/YY-part1 and you have

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

2016-02-09 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:41:41 -0800 From:John Nemeth Message-ID: <201602082342.u18Ngfw5029915@server> [Caution: crappy kre memory dump below... treat it as random gibberish...] | The first release of BSD was in 1977, That's true, but hardly

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

2016-02-09 Thread Thomas Mueller
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

Re: pflogd consume CPU

2016-02-09 Thread Miwa Susumu
2016-02-08 12:39 GMT+09:00 David H. Gutteridge : >>> > pflogd process consume CPU. >>> > Because of that in load average is too high. >>> > >>> Can you ktrace it? >>> > >>this is kdump output. >>> > >>sakura# kdump ktrace.out >>> > >> 974 1 pflogd EMUL

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

2016-02-09 Thread Johnny Billquist
On 2016-02-09 00:41, John Nemeth wrote: Those problems could be solved. Obviously, old tools wouldn't work with the new format; however, new tools could work with either format. But, the first issue is that it is an on-disk format. You need to find the space to expand the disklabel and

Re: GPT vs BSD-label

2016-02-09 Thread Swift Griggs
On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Christos Zoulas wrote: OpenBSD has done it. I've made the same code changes but I stopped just before committing because we have dozens of custom copies of disklabel code that would need to be adjusted and tested. Well, not like I have any authority, but I'd welcome that

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

2016-02-09 Thread Jeremy C. Reed
Have a look here: http://wiki.tuhs.org/doku.php?id=events:free_licenses In particular note that in 2002 the copyright owner made the old V7 code and 32V Unix code available as open source with a BSD-like license. While 3BSD was derived from 32V, it also included a lot of other code that was

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

2016-02-09 Thread Martin
Of course that is not what I was trying to suggest. Perhaps I should have made it more clear but I am not trying to void the original licence in any way shape or form. I am asking because I do not want to. Though Lyndon you have answered my question. That a project released under a BSD-style

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

2016-02-09 Thread Jeremy C. Reed
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Martin wrote: > Of course that is not what I was trying to suggest. Perhaps I should > have made it more clear but I am not trying to void the original > licence in any way shape or form. I am asking because I do not want > to. Though Lyndon you have answered my question.

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

2016-02-09 Thread Martin
Well it all honesty 3BSD was just an example that came to my head. I am actually looking at 2.11BSD mostly. I understand the caldera licence is a bsd-style licence which correct me if I'm wrong includes 2.11BSD? So what you are saying is i could create a fork/ continuation of the 2.11BSD under for