I am not sure, as long as clients would be treated seriously!
I look at large corporate software vendors and see them treating
customers seriously maybe 2% of the time at best. In this case, most of
I assumed FreeBSD team are OK and would fit in this 2% or even those 0.2%
am i wrong?
Maybe take a look at lftp, at the mirror option. For basic demands its a
compact solution.
try doing backup of things with 1 dirs and million files and certainly
you will understand you need rsync.
ftp protocol is plain bad for that.
___
I meant, is it now possible to have 2TB FS with UFS?
UFS2 is here since IMHO year 2005.
Now the only problem is fsck time.
actually IMHO fsck can be improved a lot but someone must have time and
will to do this. if parallelism would be exploited on gstripe type(*)
volumes then it should
and hardware in the lab on last week.
I reformatted the USB drive with extFAT and standard block size on
Windows 7. The USB drive is now seen again on FreeBSD and recognized as
this points that the pendrive's controller is not just flaky but horrid.
The communiation with OS, and how/whether it
Hmm, I'm not sure that there is _anything_ that meets _all_ your criteria!
rsync meets. It can be a little harder with windoze, with any unix-like OS
it will work.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
What if a USB mass storage device works with some BSDs but not all?
well the only thing i never experiences with USB pendrives is a one that
works everytime properly. Everything else is possible.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
However, fsck'ing such large volumes will take considerable time if such a
thing needs doing. There is the new Soft-update plus Journaling coming
along with the advent of 9.x, which is supposed to ameliorate this. Not
it is far from perfect. But fine to use it.
Just DO full fsck every some
lftp does work incremental. Take a look at Chad's posting again and read
what he needs. And of course, ftp via ssh is nothing new ...
still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
still - any ftp client will no go faster than ftp protocol allows.
That's sure. But I think it's an option for the laptops what Chad
only if $HOME directly or part of it is copied and nothing more
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
a) activate PXE/WOL on bios
b) start the laptop via PXE using a freebsd/linux/whatever_os_you_want_to_use
c) use dd piped to rsync to make the backups
not really efficient but working.
ntfsprogs from ports can be helpful. you may use ntfsmount and access NTFS
files directly.
if backup is
ports.
Same as in my case.
USB is more a lottery than real computing for me.
but this is not USB standard fault, but USB device manufacturers that
cannot really read standard specifications. It works (under windoze,
under linux) is enough.
___
daily basis, Luckily, very few of them involve FreeBSD, which is why I
do not exhibit such a negative attitude, except of course when I do
attempt to plug one in a FreeBSD machine with negative results. I do
not know what is more pathetic; the fact that so many devices fail to
operate correctly
what exactly deficiences and requirements not met by rsync are you talking
about?
simplifications of rsync's ability to exclude files or directories, elegant
handling of backups' expirations) are sufficient to make it a worthy
alternative to naked rsync. The frontend is written in Perl and
PXE booting gives a lot of possibilities. I use it to boot Clonezilla to
back up Windows systems. That is better than dd, since only used disk blocks
ntfsclone is what you need. for sure simpler.
For FreeBSD and other open operating systems, sysutils/rsnapshot is a
what is exactly
For setting the dafault hash used to hash /etc/master.passwd, it has
been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the sense of
being more expensive to crack.
is md5 that easy to crack?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
windoze, under linux) is enough.
If the ROI does not exceed the expenditure to meet a specification that
only applies to a niche segment of the potential market, then it is in
all probability not going to happen.
Right. Fine.
There is not written on them conforms to USB Mass Storage standard
you mean wake on lan? there is wol tool in ports.
proper. I meant, too, that dirvish, which was the alternative that I
recommended, presents an elegant and easily-comprehended way to manage rsync's
considerable abilities, not that it provides features that can't be managed
directly by rsync.
Thanks for pointing out that there are Windows ports of rsync, and that you
provide examples of their use. I'm not sure I would entrust my system backups
to them if they come with the disclaimer that you've no idea how stable and
usable they are.
been recommended changing md5 for something more secure in the
sense of being more expensive to crack.
is md5 that easy to crack?
It has been discussed recently, cf
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2012-June/006271.html
or virtually the first half of
Actually, a Wake-On-LAN feature is not at all necessary for me in this
case. It's a simple enough task to just trigger a backup manually at the
command line via a script that automates the process.
still. a separate wol tool is available in ports. You may easily construct
shell script that
This is a valid argument. Checksumming is used to detect cases where the
disk or the disk controller return invalid data to the CPU. This can happen
for any number of reasons and isn't that unlikely. Unrecoverable read
error probabilities are high enough with common drives that you can
OK, if you have 24 2-way mirrors and two drives in the same mirror fail
then with UFS you lose the contents of that mirror. Other filesystems in
the same box are fine. Restores from backups are going to be easy since
the backups are probably arranged to be per-filesystem.
true. i actually don't
I would see a problem with that -- not because I don't think FreeBSD is
worth it. I do, and I think it is worth more than that, in fact. The
true.
biggest problem with what you propose, though, is that it would destroy
the social factors in development of the FreeBSD system that make it
incapable of handling the 64GB drive. I do not have issues with USB
it's not about capacity. But seems some quirks for that pendrive (which
have buggy firmware) has to be added, as it doesn't respond for inquiry
command.
sorry i am not USB expert.
umass1: Lexar USB Flash Drive, class 0/0,
underway to make sure the base system will compile cleanly with both
Clang and GCC 4.2+, so I think you're just making up complaints here.
Someone (other than Wojciech Puchar, who would just be talking out of his
once again personal attacks from unhappy childs.
ass) correct me if I'm
Because it doesn't address an of the *OTHER* valid reasons why GCC is
being replaced -- among them:
1) GCC's continuously increasing propensity to generate bad code,
examples? All test shows that gcc code is not only bad, but very good. Why
are you just saying things you know isn't true?
I want to get started programming for hardware. Motors, sensors, actuators, etc.
I have a programming background, (python, PHP, C++) but no experience with code
that drives hardware. (Motors, sensors, etc.)
add -- to your language list so first 2 would disappear and third will
become C.
I
if you really need flash, you may install gnash from ports. not fully
capable but usually works, and doesn't need linux emulator and closed
source code.
Thanks for the advice about gnash! I've installed it, and removed
nspluginwrapper and all the linux stuff.
It seems to work perfectly for
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself. If
FreeBSD appears
as a subsidiary of some commercial company (say Juniper) i am not sure this
will be good
I think any project that size is actually a subsidiary and must be.
I just don't like that it isn't stated
force gcc build that MAYBE will work. possibly not.
My experience with NetBSD suggests you may be right there, but Linux?
After commercial support got too much about directing decisions, NetBSD
got very quickly useless.
I'll have to build a new Linux installation and see for myself!
Because of FreeBSD lists being mainly unmoderated and open to posting without
subscription, I notice some outright spams that slip through the list filters.
I believe (could possibly be wrong) that the lists have spam filters in place.
it must have and well done. FreeBSD list is for sure more
wrong way to go. I can ask him for these and other reasons at your
request.
Yes, that would be a good idea, not so much for me as for others who want to
better understand the licensing issues of GCC compared to Clang.
i would like to hear this. but only in C compiler context.
i understand
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
I will go with a single thread. I will also try to keep it as short
For my various OpenSource projects, I have deployed a 36TB file system
which is fine and stable running 24/7. Additionally at home I use 4TB
(2x 2TB) + 8TB (2x 4TB) on a machine with 4GB RAM this has been up
for 3 years with minimum reboot!
Good. There are some companies that make for
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
The correct answer would be. I depends on the work load
For different kinds of production workload it doesn't, aat least for me
+---+
|Stripe |
+---+---+
|Mirror1|Mirror2|
+---+---+---+---+
| Disk1 | Disk2 | Disk3 | Disk4 |
+---+---+---+---+
true.
but there are mirror/stripe layout that is quite
Maybe a hint. I leave always one big release out. With other words. If you
start now with 9, you do not have to move to 10 but you can stick with 9 until
11 comes out. You do not even have to upgrade at the spot.
my as i do - i for now run FreeBSD 8, and will run 9 when it will be
needed with
System 1: 32 cores, Interlagos, 64GB, 18TB RAIDz1
System 2: 64 cores, Interlagos, 128GB, 15TB RAIDz1
System 3: 8 cores, Bulldozer, 16GB, 27TB RAIDz2
what these systems do? (no details, just rough information)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing
I really want to see your face when you fsck 48TB w/o ffs+j (since that is
so young must be immature :S ) of data with the phone ring non stop with
Even if ZFS would be the only filesystem in existence i would make one per
2 disks (single mirror).
No matter what's going on, what do you
answer yourself.
Sorry but I don;t follow you right there. with 48 disks you would not mirror
24vs24.
if i wasn't clear enough then i would it like that (with UFS), and
assuming disks are named disk0disk48, and that i have at least one
more disk for system code, often acessed data etc
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Hooman Fazaeli wrote:
On 6/21/2012 4:22 PM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
stick with UFS. It JUST WORKS(R), and is trusty.
And it works fast.
What options are there for 2TB file systems with UFS?
the same as for 2TB filesystems
One interesting feature of ZFS if it's block checksum: all reads and writes
include block checksum, so it can easily detect situations where, for
example, data is quietly corrupted by RAM.
you may be shocked but you are sometimes wrong. i already demostrated it
and checksumming doesn't get
interesting idea but the options ZFS would give you are superior to this
setup.
Were you just unable to understand my setup or a reasons to do this?
please reread former post and possibly ask again if you don't understand
the reasons.
I ignore performance issues completely for now.
But
With UFS2 you can use file systems up to 2^73 (8 ZB). The problem is not UFS,
but the old tools used to format the disk like fdisk and bsdlabel. For big
file systems you must use gpart.
true. or not using anything at all (and put filesystem directly on whole
device/mirror).
The problem with
I do understand your setup but I dont have too agree that it is a good
so i would repeat my question.
Assume you have 48 disks, in mirrored configuration (24 mirrors) and 480
users with their data on them.
Your solution with ZFS - ZFS crashes or you get double disk failure.
Assuming the
I think it is incorrect to assume that a failure with ZFS that cannot be
recovered could be recovered if you used UFS with fsck.
i think it is incorrect to not read carefully.
So explanation - ZFS failure NOT caused by disks failure cannot be usually
recovered.
But even if i am wrong at
Another important point:
With 24 ZFS mirrors you'd have your data being striped across ALL the
mirrors. This will yield much better performance.
i though already after few mails that you can discuss things normally.
But this reply just perfectly proves you didn't read more than maybe my
stupid answer to stupid question.
You never seen - but they do happens.
In other topic you hammerd on fact and if someone ask you to deliver them its
a stupid question.
just a proof it is a waste of time to explain things (FOR FREE) for people
like you.
You are free to make dangerous
True but this applies as much to you. You think you know it all and that is
quite the probdlem with you.
And discussing with you is a true waste with this attittute. Even its free.
so stop it.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
his interactions on several topics.
ZFS is stable and tested, and works well if you have the resources. That
means RAM as well as hard disks - and if you don't have the resources, most
of ZFS's advantages wouldn't be coming into play anyway. I have seen no
right. repeat it more times, as
Second, FreeBSD is not a commercial company, and while this argument may
have a merit
for commercial sponsors of FreeBSD, it has zero bearing on FreeBSD itself.
You seem to be unaware of what percentage of the development and maintenance
staff and the money to pay for them comes from those
the experimental development branch -HEAD, it _might_ happen that
the system doesn't even compile, but updated 30 minutes after
that accident, it runs fine again. :-)
And finally unless doing tests or using private not-really-important
computer, don't just install newest FreeBSD because it's
ZFS is superior to UFS. End of the history.
There is no point in use old technology (UFS) when the new one can make the
same as the older and better ?
anyway there must be morons here like me that after observation conclude
that older is far safer and better.
But if you want end of history
We put clang because sponsors wanted it.
Sponsors didn't want clang. Sponsors wanted not to be encumbered by a GPLv3
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
they are not.
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
Programs that link to GPLv3 libraries are encumbered.
you mean libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++?
scanned /bin and /usr/bin and few programs do link it - all are C++
written.
None IMHO are needed in closed-source system
Because there's no reason to do that. It's an asinine suggestion.
Clang is here to stay. Most of us are happy about that decision. GCC
Because most that are not already stopped and ignored thing. and use GCC.
Politics won.
___
z woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
programs compiled by GPLv3 compiler are not encumbered.
This has not been decided in court yet.
sources please!
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Agreed. Wojciech Puchar is in my 'probable troll' file at this point,
Here too, http://berklix.com/~jhs/dots/.procmailrc.lists
very good. just block me, instead of performing aggresive replies and
personal attacks.
___
freebsd-questions
sources please!
Google GPLv3 court case. There are no applicable results. Until a Judge
decides what the license truly means everyone using it is at risk.
true.
But why anyone from FreeBSD fundation didn't just write official letter
to GNU Free Software Foundation asking for just that
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Only after you, my man, only after you.
not yours. i'm not
Additionally, the exceptions for using the GCC runtime library for non-GPL
executables
is limited to what hey call eligible compilation processes, what rules out
using
proprietary GCC plugins or other combinations of core GCC functionality with
non-GPL
tooling and extensions.
Please note
So, has anyone compared the performance of clang vs gcc compiled in daily use--
for example as a server? Anyone can cherry pick a couple of binaries, but how
important is this for the performance of FreeBSD world?
not big, as with almost any compiler. Most workload are dominated by cache
Here[1] we can read a program linking agains a gpl v3 library should be released
under the gplv3 too. However, the only concern would be when the program is
implicitly linked against libgcc right? Well, there's even an
exception[2] for this.
this is exactly how i understand that. Anyway
long term goals. Eliminating, or at least not being dependent on a GNU
toolchain. GPL v3 brings with it a whole host problems such as:
As you already know i don't like GPL very much. As i already said for me
GNU is computer communism.
But like or not like, i don't prefer my likeness above
i have samba server and few virtualbox sessions using vboxnet which is
started by /usr/local/etc/rc.d/vboxheadless
i want samba to be started AFTER vboxheadless as the latter configures
vboxnet0 automatically when started, and samba do bind to vboxnet0.
so i appended vboxheadless to REQUIRE:
Yes Wojciech, I can attempt an answer for you. Pay attention, this gets very
complex.
The decision to move to Clang was motivated by what is best for the project,
and not what is best for Wojciech.
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
So please
Create a new file in /usr/local/etc/rc.d/precedence with the following
contents:
#!/bin/sh
#
# Persuade vboxheadless to start before samba.
# PROVIDE: precedence
# REQUIRE: vboxheadless
# BEFORE: samba
:
Make it executable. Note -- the ':' does seem to be necessary.
thank you for help. I
The bad thing about GPLv3 is that if anyone commits any code under this
license into the tree vendors that use our code base for making their own
OSes will ditch FreeBSD as they can be sued by FSF. Juniper for example. It
would be wise to listen to their point of view on GPLv3.
not really
1. gcc will still be available through the ports system.
As well as clang is available in ports. not an argument.
2. The move to clang/llvm as a default compiler will reduce the amount
of GPL code in the base system, eventually reducing distribution
issues (especially for 3rd parties).
#!/bin/sh
#
# Persuade vboxheadless to start before samba.
# PROVIDE: precedence
# REQUIRE: vboxheadless
# BEFORE: samba
:
Make it executable. Note -- the ':' does seem to be necessary.
thank you for help. I will test it when being on place and could reboot.
But still - do you know why it
I have searched for ppmtoxpm in ports and in FreeBSD Search Services to
no avail.
ppmtoxpm converts a portable pixmap into an X11 pixmap.
Is there a freebsd equivalent or alternative?
No equivalent just the same netpbm package
/usr/ports/graphics/netpbm
And why you think it's not better then gcc?
because - as you already should know - test shows otherwise.
As well as FreeBSD running predictable with gcc anyway.
Still theory and ideology.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
I'm a relative newcomer. Are the FreeBSD mailing lists always this flame-y? I
no. it is temporary.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
A somewhat haphazardly search of the postings in this forum would seem
to indicate that any post questioning the ethics or usefulness of
FreeBSD as compared to other operating systems that elicit six or more
strange but usefulness of FreeBSD wasn't questioned.
By the way Fred, please don't
But still - do you know why it is necessary?
An explanation written some 80 years ago;
'Because that way it will work'.
if you don't have anything to say - just don't do it.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
still not stopped personal attacks (last part of last sentence) but lets
forget.
Fact; that was NOT a personal attack. Your entire line of reasoning so far
has been about -your- preferences, and things as you see them, for _your_
What is specifically my preference?
1) Your opinion about
Really, this format of discussion is rather exception
than rule (from my experience).
or rather - discussion is a rule :)
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send
speed estimates.
there are a difference between speed estimate and actual speed - and i
talk about the latter only.
Besides, NetBSD and OpenBSD has already selected and using pcc now. And they
are fine with that one.
their problem.
___
Nothing wrong with productive flaming for me,
but it's just not typical code of conduct in FreeBSD
mailing list at all.
Actually I can't remember any flame-war about system compilers - this is the
first one.
because such situation like now never happened - changing C compiler to
much worse
They could be reduced by a combo. of eg:
- forcible unsub, black list,
- block of anon. remailer domains
- making this list subscribtion required before posting.
(which would make it harder for newbies fresh to
FreeBSD, but we need some
I am new to FreeBSD, coming from a GNU/Linux background (most
comfortable with Archlinux). I compiled a series of questions I would
like to ask in different areas and categories. Should I send them all
in a single email message or should I split them by subject/topic into
different emails?
it is only a proof that it was decided to put it as FreeBSD default
compiler.
Everything is said, explained and discusse why this decision is made.. So
Explanation about the decision was already made isn't explanation.
but i don't require any explanation. actually i don't require anything.
Why not make FreeBSD better for everyone by cooperating with the CLANG
project?
because we already have great compiler - GCC. In spite of using GPL
licence.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
I'm quite new to FreeBSD too (RHEL/Fedora background), and am most
impressed with it so far.
rather huge difference.
Secondly (and probably stating the obvious), the handbook
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/
is the place I always look first.
and third - manuals.
I wish that or something like that were true, but pcc is dead even in
OpenBSD packages/ports. There was just some discussion on misc@
I am hoping for the day gcc is only used on Linux and many free compilers
are used everywhere else.
me too. but first we need to have Free compiler that would be
I have some friends that develop software. They had released it under
GNU umbrella. Later on, other folks were taking advantage and not
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
Will i be able to compile FreeBSD base system with gcc after some time?
not sure.
Why is that so important for you?
if you would read even less than carefully the topic you will get the
answer.
___
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really own
this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
Releasing something as GPL does not mean you give up
copyright. If I understood this whole thing correctly,
I'm not a lawyer but i repeat what i've read time ago,
isn't it that once you release your own work as GPL you don't really
own this and even you cannot use it in closed source software?
When you license something, you still own the copyright. You can then
release it under other licenses as well, and for versions you have
modified you can release
You're being paid to write a program for a customer. You
i don't talk that case, but if i am hired to write some part of program as
an employer in software company.
So - if authors of any project, no matter how numerous, will all
without exception agree that they want to get rid of GPL,
the answer.
I'll try to help out, here.
Christer Solskogen: I think the reason that is so very important to
Wojciech Puchar is the fact that he is incapable of imagining:
1. other concerns that might apply
2. that things appear highly likely to change
3. that a negligible performance
FreeBSD 9 (x86_64).
Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I have googled assiduously and found nothing
useful.
I have installed Flash, following the instructions in the handbook.
Flash is adobe product and they don't provide binaries for FreeBSD, at
least they didn't.
if you really need flash, you may
No you don't. You like what YOU (and ONLY you) think of as facts (see below).
still not explained what is wrong in comparing end results of benchmark
and seeing that they are quite same. This is the only meaningful point for
me.
I live ideology for others.
Only facts? Well and good. Do you
lilas% clang -v
Apple clang version 2.1 (tags/Apple/clang-163.7.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn)
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.0
lilas% clang -O4 test.c -lf2c
lilas% time ./a.out
...
real 0m2.359s
user 0m2.341s
sys 0m0.003s
lilas% /usr/local/bin/gcc -v
?
gcc version 4.6.1 (GCC)
lilas%
I would also guess that the base system is stuck with gcc ~4.1 due to
the GPLv3-ization of later gcc version. Is that correct?
true.
anyway - can someone point me an article about explaining in human
language (contrary to lawyer language) why GPLv3 is more limiting in
reality over v2 .
programs like mencoder which require
the highest efficiency.
Really - just to throw in another opinion:
As an average user I don't see any performance impact on my clang-built
desktop-every-day-workstation. The only thing that is getting on my nerves
are some ports I frequently have to
Does GPLv3 does force programs you compile with gcc to be GPLed?
As far as I know, the main difference is that the GPLv3 is
often called a viral license. Software linking against v3
libraries and so maybe programs compiled by a v3 compiler
will have - according to the license - to be released
The problem need to solve:
Need have end system, when keyfile when boot will be created automatically,
and erased securelly just after root crypto` partition mounts (by dd with
of=keyfile, for example)
That need to do because freebsd have remote hosting.
Needs:
To make key not (at least
i tested your test program, and in that case, contrary to testing common
unix programs, difference is far higher showing gcc superiority.
i did this test with FreeBSD 9 supplied clang and FreeBSD 9 supplied gcc.
clearly shows that clang actually cannot do more agressive optimization
(that
201 - 300 of 3224 matches
Mail list logo
