Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[lists]

Tue, 24 May 2016 16:44:09 +0100 Kevin Chadwick 
> > [WARNING! Shameless self-promotion below!]
> > I have solved my need for read-only OpenBSD in a following manner:
> > https://www.mimar.rs/blog/how-to-increase-openbsds-resilience-to-power-outage
> > s/  
> 
> write your own boot seed... doh! why didn't I think of that already,
> though I'm still unsure why rc.shutdown can't happen before the seed
> write to /etc

I like that OpenBSD users (like me) post OpenBSD experiences online,
no matter how precise the technical information is, man pages exist.

Kevin, it's fine if you switch your bias in a productive discussion,
but contradicting any position without bit of wisdom, you figure it.
Also just maybe too few people want to continue reading this thread.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Kevin Chadwick]

> [WARNING! Shameless self-promotion below!]
> I have solved my need for read-only OpenBSD in a following manner:
> https://www.mimar.rs/blog/how-to-increase-openbsds-resilience-to-power-outage
> s/

write your own boot seed... doh! why didn't I think of that already,
though I'm still unsure why rc.shutdown can't happen before the seed
write to /etc

Cheers

-- 

KISSIS - Keep It Simple So It's Securable

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Marko Cupać]

On Fri, 20 May 2016 03:29:58 +0300
li...@wrant.com wrote:

> This is a good ping to revisit the diskless(8) thanks for mentioning
> it.

While you are at it, please revisit the need for RARP as it doesn't
support CIDR.

http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/bootparamd-and-non-default-subnet-m
asks-td278070.html

[WARNING! Shameless self-promotion below!]
I have solved my need for read-only OpenBSD in a following manner:
https://www.mimar.rs/blog/how-to-increase-openbsds-resilience-to-power-outage
s/
--
Before enlightenment - chop wood, draw water.
After  enlightenment - chop wood, draw water.

Marko Cupać
https://www.mimar.rs/

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[lists]

Fri, 20 May 2016 00:44:30 +0200 Jasper Valentijn

> OK, diskless(8), Example 7 states:
> 
> Populate myclient's root filesystem on the server. How this is done depends
> on the client architecture and the version of the OpenBSD distribution. It
> can be as simple as copying and modifying the server's root filesystem, or
> perhaps the files can be taken from the standard binary distribution.
> 
> >
> > In fact, with the current scheme, this is really the only way you
> > should mount NFS clients. I mean, even though it's done with an
> > atomic mv, I wouldn't really want my NFS clients re-ordering shared
> > /usr/lib on reboot.  
> 
> Shouldn't each diskless client have a unique re-ordering independent of the
> server?

Yes, preferably and recommended.  This makes each machine unique in
this respect, increasing resilience as intended with the mitigation.

> Must an OpenBSD diskless client depend on myserver to reorder even
> if it's not able? Think not running OpenBSD.

There are many other write desirable operations on systems running with
no local disk.  In fact network booting can be combined with local disk.

Memory file systems, and optionally some flash memory storage locally
may come to the rescue for one time shuffling.  Persist between reboots
for entropy seed can be write mount on the server etc, you get the idea.

This is a good ping to revisit the diskless(8) thanks for mentioning it.

diskless - booting a system over the network
[http://man.openbsd.org/diskless]

> I read diskless(8) as: myclient must be OpenBSD and my server could be
> OpenBSD.

One valid real example in a heterogeneous operating system environment.
Note: the above are not authoritative opinions of mine, not power talk.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Jasper Valentijn]

On May 19, 2016 8:36 PM, "Chris Cappuccio"  wrote:
>
> Jasper Valentijn [jasper.valent...@gmail.com] wrote:
> > Maybe relevant...
> >
> > diskless(8), Example 10 states:
> >
> > If the */usr* partition is to be shared between machines, as in the
example
> > */etc/exports* above, a more suitable entry might be:
> >
> > myserver:/usr /usr nfs ro 0 0
>
> That is a perfect setup, with the current library reordering scheme.
> Only the main machine which actually hosts /usr on local disks would
> re-order, the other machines would take what they're given and the
> re-order operation would fail due to ro.

OK, diskless(8), Example 7 states:

Populate myclient's root filesystem on the server. How this is done depends
on the client architecture and the version of the OpenBSD distribution. It
can be as simple as copying and modifying the server's root filesystem, or
perhaps the files can be taken from the standard binary distribution.

>
> In fact, with the current scheme, this is really the only way you
> should mount NFS clients. I mean, even though it's done with an
> atomic mv, I wouldn't really want my NFS clients re-ordering shared
> /usr/lib on reboot.

Shouldn't each diskless client have a unique re-ordering independent of the
server? Must an OpenBSD diskless client depend on myserver to reorder even
if it's not able? Think not running OpenBSD.

I read diskless(8) as: myclient must be OpenBSD and my server could be
OpenBSD.

Jasper

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Chris Cappuccio]

Jasper Valentijn [jasper.valent...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Maybe relevant...
> 
> diskless(8), Example 10 states:
> 
> If the */usr* partition is to be shared between machines, as in the example
> */etc/exports* above, a more suitable entry might be:
> 
> myserver:/usr /usr nfs ro 0 0

That is a perfect setup, with the current library reordering scheme.
Only the main machine which actually hosts /usr on local disks would
re-order, the other machines would take what they're given and the
re-order operation would fail due to ro.

In fact, with the current scheme, this is really the only way you
should mount NFS clients. I mean, even though it's done with an
atomic mv, I wouldn't really want my NFS clients re-ordering shared
/usr/lib on reboot.

Chris

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Jasper Valentijn]

Maybe relevant...

diskless(8), Example 10 states:

If the */usr* partition is to be shared between machines, as in the example
*/etc/exports* above, a more suitable entry might be:

myserver:/usr /usr nfs ro 0 0

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[lists]

Wed, 18 May 2016 16:21:15 +0100 bytevolc...@safe-mail.net
> This was mainly asking for clarification about what's going on;
> that's what was given.

Clarification provided early in the thread by Theo, and you and others
like you insisted on the nonsense, which results in annoying comments.

It is known such persistence has a purpose, maybe you know what it is?

> Just because people come up with reasoning that you don't agree with,
> doesn't automatically make it dumb or pointless.

Of course, now also don't be offended when you're advised a time delay.
For successful living, make example by doing yourself your suggestions.

Pluralism and idea sharing are encouraged, the topic is well discussed
and exhausted by either follow or not, but not insist on a wrong point.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[bytevolcano]

li...@wrant.com wrote:
> Defending read only file systems on a writable medium is pointless, but
> your option, which does not qualify as a bug report.  Now read one book.

Wrant, calm down and curb the attitude please.
You often come up with good stuff here, and there are even things you have said 
in this thread which I agree with, but show this attitude the door.
Snide remarks and associated rudeness (eg. "Now read one book"), 
unsubstantiated blanket statements (eg. "X is pointless"), and baseless 
accusations (eg. while discussing UPS issues) do not add anything of value to 
this discussion.
This wasn't a bug report either. This was mainly asking for clarification about 
what's going on; that's what was given.

Just because people come up with reasoning that you don't agree with, doesn't 
automatically make it dumb or pointless.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[lists]

Tue, 17 May 2016 19:45:55 +0100 Kevin Chadwick 
> > > UPS do fail too btw. I had to rip some cheap APC ones out because
> > > they caused more downtime than they saved!
> > 
> > Did you just copy paste this line from somewhere?  You can't handle a
> > battery replacement, and you're advising read only file system mounts.  
> 
> I sometimes agree with some things you say but boy are you way too hot
> headed.

Defending read only file systems on a writable medium is pointless, but
your option, which does not qualify as a bug report.  Now read one book.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Mike Larkin]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 07:45:55PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > UPS do fail too btw. I had to rip some cheap APC ones out because
> > > they caused more downtime than they saved!  
> > 
> > Did you just copy paste this line from somewhere?  You can't handle a
> > battery replacement, and you're advising read only file system mounts.
> 
> I sometimes agree with some things you say but boy are you way too hot
> headed.
> 
> You assume a lot and I expect it has got you in trouble before. If not
> then I expect it will if you actually speak to anyone in person like
> that.
> 
> You assume:
> 
> I'm not a founder of an electronics design and engineering company
> 
> My fathers company wasn't the first in the world AFAIK to sell a rugged
> DC vehicle UPS
> 
> I didn't transfer 8 batteries from ex rental stock and wire them
> together into a working AC UPS (to save money).
> 
> Those other APC UPS that failed didn't have brand new batteries and were
> just craply designed electronics that would switch off during a
> battery removal.
> 
> My cousin had clients that were annoyed because an expensive UPS failed
> due to a huge surge, who knows, perhaps lightning and they thought
> paying over a thousand pounds should keep them running no matter what
> happened.
> 
> I'm not a troll that has been on this list for far longer than when
> your quite fitting email address domain first appeared.
> 
> 
> p.s. My DATA is quite safe. I assure you.
> 
> -- 
> 
> KISSIS - Keep It Simple So It's Securable
> 

take this offline please. nobody cares anymore.

Re: Is loss of read-only /usr permanent?

[Kevin Chadwick]

> > UPS do fail too btw. I had to rip some cheap APC ones out because
> > they caused more downtime than they saved!  
> 
> Did you just copy paste this line from somewhere?  You can't handle a
> battery replacement, and you're advising read only file system mounts.

I sometimes agree with some things you say but boy are you way too hot
headed.

You assume a lot and I expect it has got you in trouble before. If not
then I expect it will if you actually speak to anyone in person like
that.

You assume:

I'm not a founder of an electronics design and engineering company

My fathers company wasn't the first in the world AFAIK to sell a rugged
DC vehicle UPS

I didn't transfer 8 batteries from ex rental stock and wire them
together into a working AC UPS (to save money).

Those other APC UPS that failed didn't have brand new batteries and were
just craply designed electronics that would switch off during a
battery removal.

My cousin had clients that were annoyed because an expensive UPS failed
due to a huge surge, who knows, perhaps lightning and they thought
paying over a thousand pounds should keep them running no matter what
happened.

I'm not a troll that has been on this list for far longer than when
your quite fitting email address domain first appeared.


p.s. My DATA is quite safe. I assure you.

-- 

KISSIS - Keep It Simple So It's Securable