Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Allen]

On 12/20/2011 2:53 AM, Da Rock wrote:
> On 12/20/11 16:08, Allen wrote:
>> On 12/13/2011 11:54 AM, Devin Teske wrote:
>> *Snipping*
>>
 On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:
>> As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their
>> biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never
>> a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break
>> it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its
>> saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in
>> no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent
>> killer too. My
>>> 2c's
 anyway...
>> I didn't know there WERE any Linux distros that still used one root
>> partition, and one swap... Even Mandriva doesn't do that anymore.
>>
>>
> Fedora for one...

I haven't used Fedora in a VERY long time. I hate it almost as much as I
hate Gentoo. Anyway, one distro out of close to 300 isn't bad.

-Allen

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/20/11 16:08, Allen wrote:

On 12/13/2011 11:54 AM, Devin Teske wrote:
*Snipping*


On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:

As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their
biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never
a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break
it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its
saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in
no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My

2c's

anyway...

I didn't know there WERE any Linux distros that still used one root
partition, and one swap... Even Mandriva doesn't do that anymore.



Fedora for one...
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Allen]

On 12/13/2011 11:54 AM, Devin Teske wrote:
*Snipping*

>> On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:
 As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their
 biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never
 a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break
 it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its
 saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in
 no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My
> 2c's
>> anyway...

I didn't know there WERE any Linux distros that still used one root
partition, and one swap... Even Mandriva doesn't do that anymore.

-Allen
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[CyberLeo Kitsana]

On 12/13/2011 10:54 AM, Devin Teske wrote:
> We're seeing in 8.1-RELEASE that "nodev" is an invalid option for NFS mounts
> that causes your system to boot into single-user mode. Is this still the case 
> in
> 9.0-RC2/3 or has the option been re-added? "nodev" was a valid option in
> 4.11-RELEASE, not sure why it was removed (and/or made invalid).

Since the advent of devfs, device nodes no longer function anywhere
other than a devfs-backed filesystem; so 'nodev' is, in a sense, the
default. Try it yourself:

8<
amani# dd if=/dev/zero count=1 | hd
1+0 records in
1+0 records out
512 bytes transferred in 0.46 secs (11126858 bytes/sec)
  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
||
*
0200
amani# mknod zero c 0 26
amani# dd if=./zero count=1 | hd
dd: ./zero: Inappropriate ioctl for device
amani#
8<

-- 
Fuzzy love,
-CyberLeo
Technical Administrator
CyberLeo.Net Webhosting
http://www.CyberLeo.Net


Furry Peace! - http://.fur.com/peace/
___
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"

RE: 9.0 install and journaling

[Eric S Pulley]

--On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 08:54:23 AM -0800 Devin Teske 
 wrote:




We're seeing in 8.1-RELEASE that "nodev" is an invalid option for NFS
mounts that causes your system to boot into single-user mode. Is this
still the case in 9.0-RC2/3 or has the option been re-added? "nodev" was
a valid option in 4.11-RELEASE, not sure why it was removed (and/or made
invalid).
--
Devin

No that was just a guideline for generic unix security practices if nodev 
isn't support by the filesystem there is nothing you can do about it. Not a 
FreeBSD specific issue. Sorry for the confusion.




___
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"

RE: 9.0 install and journaling

[Devin Teske]

> -Original Message-
> From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> questi...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Da Rock
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:55 PM
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: 9.0 install and journaling
> 
> On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:
> >> As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their
> >> biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never
> >> a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break
> >> it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its
> >> saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in
> >> no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My
2c's
> anyway...
> >> ___
> >>
> > And along those lines for security of the system, this is the U.S. DoD
> > recommendations (well mandates really) including ZFS. Not that the DoD
> > doesn't have security problems... but I'm not big fan of the one or
> > two mount point solution either. never understood why other OS
> > packagers think is okay to just dump it all under /
> >
> > Per the DISA STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guide)
> >
> > / (obviously)
> > /
> > /var
> > /tmp
> > /
> >
> > should all be separate mount points "The use of separate file systems
> > for different paths can protect the system from failures resulting
> > from a file system becoming full or failing"...
> >
> > in addition...
> >
> > All local file systems must employ journaling or another mechanism
> > that ensures file system consistency.
> >
> > Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does
> > not contain approved device files must be mounted with the "nodev" option.

We're seeing in 8.1-RELEASE that "nodev" is an invalid option for NFS mounts
that causes your system to boot into single-user mode. Is this still the case in
9.0-RC2/3 or has the option been re-added? "nodev" was a valid option in
4.11-RELEASE, not sure why it was removed (and/or made invalid).
-- 
Devin


> >
> > Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does
> > not contain approved setuid files must be mounted with the "nosuid" option.
> >
> > The nosuid option must be enabled on all NFS client mounts.
> >
> > and so on... you can find a copy of the UNIX STIG online and some of
> > it is just crazy paranoia and makes your life a pain, but there are a
> > lot of good practices in it too.
> >
> >
> I don't think any of it crazy paranoia. A PITA, maybe, but not paranoid.
> 
> Do you have a link to the original of it?
> ___
> 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"

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Eric S Pulley]

--On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 09:54:38 AM +1000 Da Rock 
 wrote:



On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:

As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their biggest
failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never a problem
with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break it with
filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its saved my life
a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in no time, and if
something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My 2c's
anyway... ___


And along those lines for security of the system, this is the U.S. DoD
recommendations (well mandates really) including ZFS. Not that the DoD
doesn’t have security problems... but I’m not big fan of the one or
two mount point solution either… never understood why other OS
packagers think is okay to just dump it all under /

Per the DISA STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guide)

/ (obviously)
/
/var
/tmp
/

should all be separate mount points "The use of separate file systems for
different paths can protect the system from failures resulting from a
file system becoming full or failing"...

in addition...

All local file systems must employ journaling or another mechanism that
ensures file system consistency.

Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved device files must be mounted with the "nodev" option.




Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved setuid files must be mounted with the "nosuid" option.

The nosuid option must be enabled on all NFS client mounts.

and so on... you can find a copy of the UNIX STIG online and some of it
is just crazy paranoia and makes your life a pain, but there are a lot of
good practices in it too.



I don't think any of it crazy paranoia. A PITA, maybe, but not paranoid.

Do you have a link to the original of it?


Sure,

Lots more there than just UNIX too. I find that the newer "SRG" xml files 
are easier to just load into a browsers and read the recommendations rather 
than pouring through the big sections in the STIGs.




Or just do the checklists. There are no *BSD specific ones but the the 
generic UNIX STIG works good (probably because at this point *BSD is 
basically the reference implementation of UNIX or at least it should be... 
damn Linux)


___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/13/11 04:09, RW wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:42:52 +1000
Da Rock wrote:


On 12/11/11 10:23, RW wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000
Da Rock wrote:



SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If
something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard
fsck.

But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that,
and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes
on the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or
can it just boot and be done?

It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the
filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to
recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a
full fsck.

Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a
fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and
avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the
next boot.


Yes, but I don't do a fsck to recover gjournal- it has a miniscule
blurp for a nanosecond and prints a message at boot and thats it.



If the filesystem is mounted via fstab the fsck is normally done
automatically. You may not have noticed this because if nothing needs
doing fsck_ufs can mark a gjournal filesystem clean instantaneously.

There are two other possibilities. The first is that it may spend some
time recovering orphaned files; this is much faster that a full fsck
but it's still seconds or minutes. The second is that the journal sync
may have failed in which case fsck terminates with "UNEXPECTED
INCONSISTENCY" which requires a full fsck. This is similar to SU. In
either case you only need a full fsck when things haven't worked out in
line with the theory.



Is
it the same with su+j? If it does then I'll drop gjournal (and the
performance hit) and I'll use su+j when I jump to 9.0.

The  SU equivalent of the journal sync is done before the crash
happens. With SU you can have an instantaneous foreground fsck by
deferring the recovery of lost files until the background check that
runs after bootup. Journalling SU eliminates the few minutes
of sluggish disk IO that that can cause.

I've been disappointed by gjournal, the performance hit isn't as bad as
background fsck but it is substantial and permanent, rather than a few
minutes hare and there. I was hoping that gjournal would be more robust,
but I've seen the occassional "UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY" just like I
have with SU.

This is going to sound odd, I know, but what does your fstab look like 
with gjournal? I've only done /var and /usr like this:


/dev/ad4s1e.journal /usrufs rw,async2   2

The only message that comes up for me after a crash is "consistent" or 
"clean". No wait, no fsck. The performance isn't exactly lightning 
though... :)

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/13/11 06:00, Eric S Pulley wrote:

As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their biggest
failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never a problem
with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break it with
filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its saved my life
a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in no time, and if
something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My 2c's anyway...
___


And along those lines for security of the system, this is the U.S. DoD
recommendations (well mandates really) including ZFS. Not that the DoD
doesn’t have security problems... but I’m not big fan of the one or two
mount point solution either… never understood why other OS packagers think
is okay to just dump it all under /

Per the DISA STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guide)

/ (obviously)
/
/var
/tmp
/

should all be separate mount points "The use of separate file systems for
different paths can protect the system from failures resulting from a file
system becoming full or failing"...

in addition...

All local file systems must employ journaling or another mechanism that
ensures file system consistency.

Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved device files must be mounted with the "nodev" option.

Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved setuid files must be mounted with the "nosuid" option.

The nosuid option must be enabled on all NFS client mounts.

and so on... you can find a copy of the UNIX STIG online and some of it is
just crazy paranoia and makes your life a pain, but there are a lot of
good practices in it too.



I don't think any of it crazy paranoia. A PITA, maybe, but not paranoid.

Do you have a link to the original of it?
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Eric S Pulley]

>
> As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their biggest
> failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never a problem
> with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break it with
> filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its saved my life
> a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in no time, and if
> something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My 2c's anyway...
> ___
>

And along those lines for security of the system, this is the U.S. DoD
recommendations (well mandates really) including ZFS. Not that the DoD
doesn’t have security problems... but I’m not big fan of the one or two
mount point solution either… never understood why other OS packagers think
is okay to just dump it all under /

Per the DISA STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guide)

/ (obviously)
/
/var
/tmp
/

should all be separate mount points "The use of separate file systems for
different paths can protect the system from failures resulting from a file
system becoming full or failing"...

in addition...

All local file systems must employ journaling or another mechanism that
ensures file system consistency.

Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved device files must be mounted with the "nodev" option.

Removable media, remote file systems, and any file system that does not
contain approved setuid files must be mounted with the "nosuid" option.

The nosuid option must be enabled on all NFS client mounts.

and so on... you can find a copy of the UNIX STIG online and some of it is
just crazy paranoia and makes your life a pain, but there are a lot of
good practices in it too.

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[RW]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:42:52 +1000
Da Rock wrote:

> On 12/11/11 10:23, RW wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000
> > Da Rock wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If
> >>> something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard
> >>> fsck.
> >> But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that,
> >> and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes
> >> on the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or
> >> can it just boot and be done?
> > It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the
> > filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to
> > recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a
> > full fsck.
> >
> > Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a
> > fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and
> > avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the
> > next boot.
> >
> Yes, but I don't do a fsck to recover gjournal- it has a miniscule
> blurp for a nanosecond and prints a message at boot and thats it. 



If the filesystem is mounted via fstab the fsck is normally done
automatically. You may not have noticed this because if nothing needs
doing fsck_ufs can mark a gjournal filesystem clean instantaneously.

There are two other possibilities. The first is that it may spend some
time recovering orphaned files; this is much faster that a full fsck
but it's still seconds or minutes. The second is that the journal sync
may have failed in which case fsck terminates with "UNEXPECTED
INCONSISTENCY" which requires a full fsck. This is similar to SU. In
either case you only need a full fsck when things haven't worked out in
line with the theory.


> Is
> it the same with su+j? If it does then I'll drop gjournal (and the
> performance hit) and I'll use su+j when I jump to 9.0.

The  SU equivalent of the journal sync is done before the crash
happens. With SU you can have an instantaneous foreground fsck by
deferring the recovery of lost files until the background check that
runs after bootup. Journalling SU eliminates the few minutes
of sluggish disk IO that that can cause.

I've been disappointed by gjournal, the performance hit isn't as bad as
background fsck but it is substantial and permanent, rather than a few
minutes hare and there. I was hoping that gjournal would be more robust,
but I've seen the occassional "UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY" just like I
have with SU.






___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/12/11 12:05, Foo JH wrote:

On 11/12/2011 6:21 AM, Robison, Dave wrote:
I prefer having separate partitions because it's more in line with 
traditional unix systems, and in particular, I don't like letting 
users have unlimited access to /tmp.

Pardon the noob question: will using Disk Quotas work to limit the damage

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/quotas.html
No, thats a very astute observation. Although its a lot harder to break 
limits when its an actual partition and everything shows exactly what 
there is to work with. So I'd personally still use partitioning myself. 
Quotas could work though, but its an added layer of admin as well.

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Foo JH]

On 11/12/2011 6:21 AM, Robison, Dave wrote:

I prefer having separate partitions because it's more in line with traditional 
unix systems, and in particular, I don't like letting users have unlimited 
access to /tmp.

Pardon the noob question: will using Disk Quotas work to limit the damage

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/quotas.html
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/11/11 10:23, RW wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000
Da Rock wrote:



SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If
something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck.

But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that,
and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes on
the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or can it
just boot and be done?

It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the
filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to
recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a full
fsck.

Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a
fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and
avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the next
boot.

Yes, but I don't do a fsck to recover gjournal- it has a miniscule blurp 
for a nanosecond and prints a message at boot and thats it. Is it the 
same with su+j? If it does then I'll drop gjournal (and the performance 
hit) and I'll use su+j when I jump to 9.0.


I've never done fsck on a gjournal (yet).
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[RW]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000
Da Rock wrote:


> > SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If 
> > something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck.
> But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that,
> and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes on
> the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or can it
> just boot and be done?

It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the
filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to
recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a full
fsck.

Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a
fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and
avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the next
boot.
___
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"

RE: 9.0 install and journaling

[Robison, Dave]

>True. But as a new user it was the separate partitions that attracted
>me, having been burned with linux's megaroot. And a new user would have
>trouble setting up the partitions. Not to mention the break with
>tradition (what is happening to this world)! :)

I prefer having separate partitions because it's more in line with traditional 
unix systems, and in particular, I don't like letting users have unlimited 
access to /tmp.

/tmp isn't a place for people to dump their downloads, large file copies, etc. 
They should do that in their home directories. Having one big partition only 
allows people to abuse /tmp, among other things.

_
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all 
copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and 
(iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any 
message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons 
other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/11/11 08:14, Warren Block wrote:

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Da Rock wrote:

GPT is cool - no problems there. The main thing I want to know is if 
I need to run fsck every time the system dies unexpectedly (which is 
a higher occurrence on a laptop)? GJournal helps in that it takes 
care of that. The growing size of drives is another concern given the 
time it takes to check a 500G disk (my smallest atm), although this 
is way down on the list for the moment.


SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If 
something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck.
But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that, and 
the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes on the 
fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or can it just 
boot and be done?

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Warren Block]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011, Da Rock wrote:

GPT is cool - no problems there. The main thing I want to know is if I need 
to run fsck every time the system dies unexpectedly (which is a higher 
occurrence on a laptop)? GJournal helps in that it takes care of that. The 
growing size of drives is another concern given the time it takes to check a 
500G disk (my smallest atm), although this is way down on the list for the 
moment.


SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes.  If 
something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck.

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/11/11 08:02, Manolis Kiagias wrote:

On 10/12/2011 11:41 μμ, Da Rock wrote:

On 12/11/11 02:09, Manolis Kiagias wrote:

On 10/12/2011 5:19 μμ, Warren Block wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011, R Skinner wrote:

So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can 
one still setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you 
possibly could, but it escaped me as to how.


Use the bsdinstall partition editor to manually create the 
partitions. I documented how to create an old-fashioned MBR layout 
with bsdinstall on the forums a while back:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=149210&postcount=13

The process would be similar for GPT, which is really the way to go 
now.




As Warren says, you can still create /usr and /var and all the other 
"legacy" partitions if you so wish - and you may even use the full 
journaling (gjournal) on them.
But the default for bsdinstall is to use gpart, install everything 
on a big / and create UFS2 partitions with the new soft-updates 
journaling system (on by default). Compared to gjournal, 
soft-updates journaling only journals metadata and not everything 
like gjournal does. This will definitely make it faster although 
probably less "safe" than gjournal. It should be good for most 
purposes though and needs no additional steps after install (unlike 
gjournal). Since it's the default, the decision to go for one big / 
seems ok after all. I believe this is more or less what Linux is 
doing with Ext3/Ext4 filesystems (metadata journaling).
GPT is cool - no problems there. The main thing I want to know is if 
I need to run fsck every time the system dies unexpectedly (which is 
a higher occurrence on a laptop)? GJournal helps in that it takes 
care of that. The growing size of drives is another concern given the 
time it takes to check a 500G disk (my smallest atm), although this 
is way down on the list for the moment.


It does the fsck automatically and it seems to be  fast. As with other 
metadata journaled filesystems you will probably have to do a full 
check occasionally. Can't you give you any times atm, I need to dump 
/repartition/restore some of my systems to use su+j. Only tested on 
virtual machines.

I'll have to try it out then; give it a chance.




As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their 
biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never 
a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break 
it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its 
saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in 
no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer 
too. My 2c's anyway...




I am used to the separate partitions too, although I realize a single 
big / would be suitable for more than a few systems. It's nice we have 
a choice here.
True. But as a new user it was the separate partitions that attracted 
me, having been burned with linux's megaroot. And a new user would have 
trouble setting up the partitions. Not to mention the break with 
tradition (what is happening to this world)! :)

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Manolis Kiagias]

On 10/12/2011 11:41 μμ, Da Rock wrote:

On 12/11/11 02:09, Manolis Kiagias wrote:

On 10/12/2011 5:19 μμ, Warren Block wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011, R Skinner wrote:

So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can 
one still setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you 
possibly could, but it escaped me as to how.


Use the bsdinstall partition editor to manually create the 
partitions. I documented how to create an old-fashioned MBR layout 
with bsdinstall on the forums a while back:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=149210&postcount=13

The process would be similar for GPT, which is really the way to go 
now.




As Warren says, you can still create /usr and /var and all the other 
"legacy" partitions if you so wish - and you may even use the full 
journaling (gjournal) on them.
But the default for bsdinstall is to use gpart, install everything on 
a big / and create UFS2 partitions with the new soft-updates 
journaling system (on by default). Compared to gjournal, soft-updates 
journaling only journals metadata and not everything like gjournal 
does. This will definitely make it faster although probably less 
"safe" than gjournal. It should be good for most purposes though and 
needs no additional steps after install (unlike gjournal). Since it's 
the default, the decision to go for one big / seems ok after all. I 
believe this is more or less what Linux is doing with Ext3/Ext4 
filesystems (metadata journaling).
GPT is cool - no problems there. The main thing I want to know is if I 
need to run fsck every time the system dies unexpectedly (which is a 
higher occurrence on a laptop)? GJournal helps in that it takes care 
of that. The growing size of drives is another concern given the time 
it takes to check a 500G disk (my smallest atm), although this is way 
down on the list for the moment.


It does the fsck automatically and it seems to be  fast. As with other 
metadata journaled filesystems you will probably have to do a full check 
occasionally. Can't you give you any times atm, I need to dump 
/repartition/restore some of my systems to use su+j. Only tested on 
virtual machines.




As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their 
biggest failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never 
a problem with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break 
it with filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its 
saved my life a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in 
no time, and if something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer 
too. My 2c's anyway...




I am used to the separate partitions too, although I realize a single 
big / would be suitable for more than a few systems. It's nice we have a 
choice here.

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/11/11 02:09, Manolis Kiagias wrote:

On 10/12/2011 5:19 μμ, Warren Block wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011, R Skinner wrote:

So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can 
one still setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you possibly 
could, but it escaped me as to how.


Use the bsdinstall partition editor to manually create the 
partitions. I documented how to create an old-fashioned MBR layout 
with bsdinstall on the forums a while back:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=149210&postcount=13

The process would be similar for GPT, which is really the way to go now.



As Warren says, you can still create /usr and /var and all the other 
"legacy" partitions if you so wish - and you may even use the full 
journaling (gjournal) on them.
But the default for bsdinstall is to use gpart, install everything on 
a big / and create UFS2 partitions with the new soft-updates 
journaling system (on by default). Compared to gjournal, soft-updates 
journaling only journals metadata and not everything like gjournal 
does. This will definitely make it faster although probably less 
"safe" than gjournal. It should be good for most purposes though and 
needs no additional steps after install (unlike gjournal). Since it's 
the default, the decision to go for one big / seems ok after all. I 
believe this is more or less what Linux is doing with Ext3/Ext4 
filesystems (metadata journaling).
GPT is cool - no problems there. The main thing I want to know is if I 
need to run fsck every time the system dies unexpectedly (which is a 
higher occurrence on a laptop)? GJournal helps in that it takes care of 
that. The growing size of drives is another concern given the time it 
takes to check a 500G disk (my smallest atm), although this is way down 
on the list for the moment.


As for one big / partition- linux may be using it: and its their biggest 
failing! I've had a system lockup due to lack of space. Never a problem 
with bsd as logs will only fill up var, a user won't break it with 
filling up usr, etc. And root always stays protected! Its saved my life 
a number of times... I can quickly fill TB's of data in no time, and if 
something goes bang the logs can be a silent killer too. My 2c's anyway...

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Manolis Kiagias]

On 10/12/2011 5:19 μμ, Warren Block wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011, R Skinner wrote:

So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can 
one still setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you possibly 
could, but it escaped me as to how.


Use the bsdinstall partition editor to manually create the partitions. 
I documented how to create an old-fashioned MBR layout with bsdinstall 
on the forums a while back:

http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=149210&postcount=13

The process would be similar for GPT, which is really the way to go now.



As Warren says, you can still create /usr and /var and all the other 
"legacy" partitions if you so wish - and you may even use the full 
journaling (gjournal) on them.
But the default for bsdinstall is to use gpart, install everything on a 
big / and create UFS2 partitions with the new soft-updates journaling 
system (on by default). Compared to gjournal, soft-updates journaling 
only journals metadata and not everything like gjournal does. This will 
definitely make it faster although probably less "safe" than gjournal. 
It should be good for most purposes though and needs no additional steps 
after install (unlike gjournal). Since it's the default, the decision to 
go for one big / seems ok after all. I believe this is more or less what 
Linux is doing with Ext3/Ext4 filesystems (metadata journaling).

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Warren Block]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011, R Skinner wrote:

So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can one still 
setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you possibly could, but it 
escaped me as to how.


Use the bsdinstall partition editor to manually create the partitions. 
I documented how to create an old-fashioned MBR layout with bsdinstall 
on the forums a while back:

  http://forums.freebsd.org/showpost.php?p=149210&postcount=13

The process would be similar for GPT, which is really the way to go now.
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Arto Pekkanen]

On 10.12.2011 15:44, Da Rock wrote:

So how does soft-update journaling compare to gjournal? I'm using gjournal now
and it runs a bit of a dog, but it is reliable (until another ufs filesystem
turns up at boot) and necessary in my environment. Can I dump it for this new 
one?

Its used on a laptop with heavy load on the disk, the power on the battery can
run out too quick for batterymon to shut it down- plus kids that play silly
monkeys with daddy's laptop... :)
___
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 am not an expert, but this is how I currently understand this:

Geom-journal is a block level journaling mechanism. It means that all data 
written on a journaled provider will be first written to the providers journal 
and then later commited to the provider. Thus data is written twice to provide 
more redundancy.


Soft-updates by itself has nothing to do with any journaling. It simply makes 
synchronous writes faster. When a filesystem is mounted synchronously, each 
write to a file first updates the metadata of the file, such a file size, and 
after that writes the actual data into the disk. When doing operations on 
thousands of small files, the overhead from synchronous writing is considerable. 
Bring forth soft-updates, which caches the metadata (file size etc.) updates 
into ram, and commits these updates into disk later when a delay and some 
conditions trigger; actual data is written into disk as soon as possible. Thus 
append/random access operations on gazillion of files are a lot faster.


From this I would conclude that soft-updates journaling tries to write the 
metadata updates into a filesystem spesific soft-update journal (the soft-update 
journal being a file maybe?) sooner than they are actually committed. I also 
suspect that soft-updates journaling has some clever way of detecting when it 
is, performance wise, okay to update the journal and/or commit updates.


In short:
- gjournal writes both data and metadata, providing more redundancy to the 
actual data AND filesystem integrity while slowing down write operations 
(although I do not have data how much it slows down disk i/o)
- journaled soft-updates writes metadata updates twice on the disk, providing 
redundancy to file system integrity, but does not prevent actual data loss.


I do not even use FreeBSD 9.0 myself, my information is totally third party, 
second hand, wise-cracks and guessing.


Any expert consultation would be appreciated.

--
Arto Pekkanen
ksym@IRCnet
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Da Rock]

On 12/10/11 22:20, RW wrote:

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:40:53 +
Frank Shute wrote:


On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 07:51:50PM +1000, R Skinner wrote:

possibly could, but it escaped me as to how. And before I do- I
looked up journaling on 9. I couldn't quite get to the bottom of
whether it is or isn't available/standard, or how to determine its
happening. I'm only interested because of unexpected
shutdowns/battery dead on the laptop- I also have 500G which is a
while to wait for fsck. Speed I'd like, but I have to consider
system integrity first.

I'm unfamiliar with the new bsdinstaller but AFAIK it sets up a UFS2
filesystem for you.

This comes with background fsck and softupdates which achieve the
objective of not having to wait for a lengthy foreground fsck if you
don't shutdown your laptop cleanly.


but to be honest, I wouldn't bother in your position: it's just more
stuff to go wrong for no appreciable gain to you.

9.0 also supports soft-update journalling which eliminates the
background fsck.

If you don't know whether it's on or not you can run

tunefs -p /


If it's not on then tunefs can turn it on, but you will presumably  need
to reboot into single user mode.

So how does soft-update journaling compare to gjournal? I'm using 
gjournal now and it runs a bit of a dog, but it is reliable (until 
another ufs filesystem turns up at boot) and necessary in my 
environment. Can I dump it for this new one?


Its used on a laptop with heavy load on the disk, the power on the 
battery can run out too quick for batterymon to shut it down- plus kids 
that play silly monkeys with daddy's laptop... :)

___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[RW]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:40:53 +
Frank Shute wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 07:51:50PM +1000, R Skinner wrote:

> > possibly could, but it escaped me as to how. And before I do- I
> > looked up journaling on 9. I couldn't quite get to the bottom of
> > whether it is or isn't available/standard, or how to determine its
> > happening. I'm only interested because of unexpected
> > shutdowns/battery dead on the laptop- I also have 500G which is a
> > while to wait for fsck. Speed I'd like, but I have to consider
> > system integrity first.

> I'm unfamiliar with the new bsdinstaller but AFAIK it sets up a UFS2
> filesystem for you.
> 
> This comes with background fsck and softupdates which achieve the
> objective of not having to wait for a lengthy foreground fsck if you
> don't shutdown your laptop cleanly.
> 
>
> but to be honest, I wouldn't bother in your position: it's just more
> stuff to go wrong for no appreciable gain to you.

9.0 also supports soft-update journalling which eliminates the
background fsck.

If you don't know whether it's on or not you can run 

tunefs -p /


If it's not on then tunefs can turn it on, but you will presumably  need
to reboot into single user mode. 
___
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"

Re: 9.0 install and journaling

[Frank Shute]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 07:51:50PM +1000, R Skinner wrote:
>
> I bit the bullet and installed the rc3, after spending half the day 
> fighting to get atheros 9285 working on a new laptop. I have to do 
> another as well, so...
> 
> After recovering myself from the shock of the new bsdinstall (not bad. A 
> little confusing after using sysinstall for so long), I installed the 
> system with 1 (thats right One! Ah ha ha) partition - yet another shock 
> to figure through. What I'm staggered about is I was using fdisk to 
> setup journaling on the usr and var partitions.
> 
> So I went to the handbook. I'm still a little confused though: can one 
> still setup the usr and var (and so forth)? It said you possibly could, 
> but it escaped me as to how. And before I do- I looked up journaling on 
> 9. I couldn't quite get to the bottom of whether it is or isn't 
> available/standard, or how to determine its happening. I'm only 
> interested because of unexpected shutdowns/battery dead on the laptop- I 
> also have 500G which is a while to wait for fsck. Speed I'd like, but I 
> have to consider system integrity first.
> 
> Little light, please?
> 
> Cheers

I'm unfamiliar with the new bsdinstaller but AFAIK it sets up a UFS2
filesystem for you.

This comes with background fsck and softupdates which achieve the
objective of not having to wait for a lengthy foreground fsck if you
don't shutdown your laptop cleanly.

As for filesystem integrity, I've occasionally not shutdown properly
and the system has subsequently come up quickly again with the
background fsck doing it's stuff.

I don't remember anybody posting to this list saying: "Help! I didn't
shutdown my machine properly and now my filesystem is toast."

At the worst you may have to run a foreground fsck.

You can set up a proper journal:

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/geom-gjournal.html

but to be honest, I wouldn't bother in your position: it's just more
stuff to go wrong for no appreciable gain to you.


Regards,

-- 

 Frank

 Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html




pgp5taXd3fBLr.pgp
Description: PGP signature