Re: Swap disklabel partition location?
On 9/15/21 10:30 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: The kernel will automatically add swap if it is partition b. If it is not partition b, it will get added later by fstab entries. Almost noone does this. If you put a filesystem on partition b, I would be surprised if something causes you problems later, you are fighting against decades of practice. You can allocate the 'b' storage near the end of your partition, rather than in-order with the other filesystems. I suspect a series of operations with with 'Resize', 'delete' and allocating new space will get you storage near the end. And then yes, you should be able to re-allocate it in the future, upon a reboot. But it is also possible that you'll hit bugs in the disklabel editor, since I've never heard of anyone doing this. Paul Pace wrote: Hello! I am wondering if there is some requirement to have the swap disklabel partition always as partition b? I have a VPS where I might prefer to put swap at the end so when the VPS RAM and storage is increased, I can increase swap size, as needed, but I can't figure out why this might be a bad idea. I have so far only found in the FAQ on Disk Setup: b: The boot disk's b partition is usually a swap partition. And this isn't clear to me that: when there is a swap partition it must be on b, but if there is no swap partition then b is something else, or if it means that usually the swap partition is put on the b partition but can be on some other partition. Thank you, Paul Thank you, that is very helpful. I will choose an appropriate time in the future to experiment with this.
Swap disklabel partition location?
Hello! I am wondering if there is some requirement to have the swap disklabel partition always as partition b? I have a VPS where I might prefer to put swap at the end so when the VPS RAM and storage is increased, I can increase swap size, as needed, but I can't figure out why this might be a bad idea. I have so far only found in the FAQ on Disk Setup: > b: The boot disk's b partition is usually a swap partition. And this isn't clear to me that: when there is a swap partition it must be on b, but if there is no swap partition then b is something else, or if it means that usually the swap partition is put on the b partition but can be on some other partition. Thank you, Paul
Re: Swap disklabel partition location?
The kernel will automatically add swap if it is partition b. If it is not partition b, it will get added later by fstab entries. Almost noone does this. If you put a filesystem on partition b, I would be surprised if something causes you problems later, you are fighting against decades of practice. You can allocate the 'b' storage near the end of your partition, rather than in-order with the other filesystems. I suspect a series of operations with with 'Resize', 'delete' and allocating new space will get you storage near the end. And then yes, you should be able to re-allocate it in the future, upon a reboot. But it is also possible that you'll hit bugs in the disklabel editor, since I've never heard of anyone doing this. Paul Pace wrote: > Hello! > > I am wondering if there is some requirement to have the swap disklabel > partition always as partition b? I have a VPS where I might prefer to > put swap at the end so when the VPS RAM and storage is increased, I > can increase swap size, as needed, but I can't figure out why this > might be a bad idea. > > I have so far only found in the FAQ on Disk Setup: > > > b: The boot disk's b partition is usually a swap partition. > > And this isn't clear to me that: when there is a swap partition it > must be on b, but if there is no swap partition then b is something > else, or if it means that usually the swap partition is put on the b > partition but can be on some other partition. > > Thank you, > > Paul >
Re: Experience using httpd in production on busy machines?
On 2021-08-27, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Crystal Kolipe(kolip...@exoticsilicon.com) on 2021.08.27 01:40:15 -0300: >> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:46:15AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 06:20:08AM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote: >> > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:47:40AM +, iio7 wrote: >> > > > Any caveats to look out for? >> > > >> > > There is an issue with httpd and large file uploads, ( > ~ 600 Mb), >> > > which was introduced sometime after OpenBSD 6.1. >> > > >> > > We had a system handling such large file uploads via http, (which is >> > > probably not a typical use case), and it worked fine whilst it was >> > > running OpenBSD 6.1. When OpenBSD 6.6 was released we did a fresh >> > > installation and found that uploads over about 600 Mb would randomly >> > > abort. Since by this time the system had fallen into disuse anyway, as >> > > far as I know nobody here bothered to investigate further, but testing >> > > now on an OpenBSD 6.9 installation, I can see that the bug still exists. >> > > >> > >> > If your test on 6.9 involves a handoff to fcgi (e.g. nextcloud) then >> > please try again with a server running -current. There was a related >> > bug fixed in May after 6.9 was branched. >> >> A quick test on -current with a very simple CGI handler invoked via >> slowcgi showed different behaviour. It now results in a repeatable >> kernel panic after uploading about 1098-1119 Mb. Smaller uploads work >> fine. >> >> As we know that it worked at one point, albeit several years ago, I'll >> try to find the commit that broke it. That might take a while, though. > > Even if you cannot find the commit or time range, please send a crash report > with the panic (and -current dmesg) to bugs@. > I don't see anything on bugs@ about this yet, is there any chance you could do a quick write-up of the kernel panic Crystal?
