On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 11:00:24AM -0500, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: >David O'Brien wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2003 at 06:00:36PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> > Scenarios that require /rescue are ones in which /bin and /sbin >> > are unusable, which is almost always going to imply a trashed file >> > in /bin, /sbin, or /lib. Thus, most /rescue scenarios are going to >> > involve locating a good copy of a trashed file to replace a damaged >> > local copy. >> >> NO. /rescue was allowed in the system to handle the case of a trashed >> file in /lib[exec]. To allow a sysadmin to recover a system from the >> same type of mishaps they could before we went to a dynamic /. > >Ie, let's do things the same way we did in 1994?
To put it another way. FreeBSD has never had the ability to recover from a hosed root or /usr using FTP, though you can use rrestore or rcp to recover /usr. There has never been a great groundswell of complaints about this (offhand, I can't recall any). Why does this suddenly become a major issue once / is dynamically linked? > Other things have >changed since then, hard drives and typical root partitions are much >bigger, Pre-existing harddrives and root partitions do not magically expand over time. A new installation and/or a new harddrive might have a much bigger root partition but an existing one won't. > and Tim estimated the total bloat from this as 64k. And then someone else wants their favourite tool which is only another 64K and so on. Pretty soon you have a 200MB /rescue. > Maybe >earlier, pre-/rescue, you couldn't recover from damaged files in the >root partition without a CD/floppy/NFS, it doesn't mean you should not >have that capability in /rescue. If no-one's missed it in the past, why would they suddenly need it now? Peter _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
