Dual booting DragonFlyBSD with WinXP
Hello, Has anybody setup a dual boot system with DragonFlyBSD and WinXP? I have 3 primary partitions on my WinXP laptop; I installed DragonFlyBSD on the third partition that is beyond 60G. I skipped the step to install the boot blocks, since I want to use NTloader to boot DragonFly. Later, I copied /boot/boot1 to c:\bootsect.dfly and added the following entry to c:\boot.ini. C:\bootsect.dfly=DragonFly FWIW, this method worked fine with FreeBSD-current. However, upon trying to boot DragonFly from NT loader, the screen goes blank for a few seconds, and then, the system reboots. Upon googling, I found the following mail in the dragonflybsd-user archive: http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/dragonflybsd-user/2004/12/31/135686 I haven't come across mail/FAQ/webpage which confirms that the method described above works for DragonFlyBSD. I understand that, PC BIOS may not be able to read beyond 1024 cylinders. From my understanding of 'Packet mode' during boot blocks installation, in course of installation, enabling it should help me boot DragonFlyBSD even if the root partition is beyond 1024 cylinders. Does enabling 'Packet mode' use a different second stage loader? What magic does enabling 'Packet mode' do, which causes the boot loader to use LBA addressing instead of CHS? Doesn't the default /boot/boot1 do that already? Thanks, -- Chirag Kantharia And all you touch and all you see, Is all your life will ever be. -- Pink Floyd, Breathe
Can't mount my hammer filesystem
Hi, I was using dragonfly bsd 2.8 x64 with 2 hard drives. Each hard drives were hammerfs powered and one hdd was a backup of the other with pfs-master / pfs-slave. The system was on a usb flash disk and it was just very slow and too little . So I deciced to format the master drive to install the system on and then get back my data from the slave. But, that's not cool, when I try to mount I get this message Not a valid HAMMER filesystem. Did I destroyed the filesystem by installing the bootblock on both disks ? Can I get my data back ? How ? I tried some commands unsuccessfully : # hammer -f /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4 recover /media/dd2/ hammer: setup_volume: /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4: Header does not indicate that this is a hammer volume # hammer -f /dev/da1s4 recover /media/dd2/ hammer: setup_volume: /dev/da1s4: Header does not indicate that this is a hammer volume # mount_hammer /dev/da1s4 /media/dd2/ /dev/da1s4: Not a valid HAMMER filesystem mount_hammer: mount /dev/da1s4 on /media/dd2/: Inappropriate file type or format # mount_hammer /dev/da1 /media/dd2/ /dev/da1: Not a valid HAMMER filesystem mount_hammer: mount /dev/da1 on /media/dd2/: Inappropriate file type or format I have been searching into the mailing list archives or the man and I can't find something related to my problem Thanks you
Re: Can't mount my hammer filesystem
:Hi, : :So I deciced to format the master drive to install the system on and :then get back my data from the slave. But, that's not cool, when I try :to mount I get this message Not a valid HAMMER filesystem. : :Did I destroyed the filesystem by installing the bootblock on both disks ? :Can I get my data back ? How ? : :I tried some commands unsuccessfully : : :# hammer -f /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4 recover /media/dd2/ :hammer: setup_volume: /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4: Header does not :indicate that this is a hammer volume s4 ? Not s4d ? Did you accidently install HAMMER directly on a slice and not install it in a disklabeled partition? Installing boot blocks would have wiped the header if you installed HAMMER in a slice instead of a partition. The hammer recover code needs information from the volume header at the moment. That's the only piece of the disk it needs to be able to do a recovery scan. It's a design bug that will require a media format change to fix. -Matt
Dragonfly network changes - U-Verse almost a complete failure
Hahaha... ok, well, I spoke too soon. U-Verse is a piece of crap. That's my conclusion. Here's some detail: * The physical infrastructure is fine, as long as you make sure there's no packet loss. To make sure you have to upload and download continuously at the same time and look for glitching and stalls. * The ATT iNID/RG router is a piece of crap, and it's impossible to replace it with anything else because it also takes the VDSL2 from the street. The iNID/RG router basically has a fully stateful firewall in it WHICH CANNOT BE TURNED OFF for either static or dynamic IPs. There are lots of instructions on how to setup static IP and how to 'open' the firewall to let everything through. All lies. No matter what you do, the firewall's stateful tracking is turned on even for your static block. It tries to track every single 'connection' running through it even when the Firewall has been turned 'off' in the config. Worse, it is buggy as hell. It drops connections (as in sends a TCP RESET!!! to either my end or the remote end) ALL THE TIME. It loses packets. It drops critical ICMP packets and gets confused about normal ICMP packets. It gets confused when lots of connections are opened all at once (for example, running a simple iPAD video app such as CrunchyRoll)... or running an actual business with servers. It can't handle third-party NATs... It can BARELY handle its own NAT but even its own wireless/NAT (bypassing all my stuff and tying my iPAD directly into the iNID/RG over the RG's wireless) drops connections noticeably. On top of that the uverse router/firewall uses MAC-based security and only allows one IP assignment per MAC. This means that your 'network' cannot be routed, it can only be bridged, and you can't mix private and public IPs on the same MAC (which is a very common setup). If the uverse router/firewall gets packets from the same IP but different MACs, it blows up... it drops connections, it refuses to route packets, it gets confused. I spent a long time with PF and if_bridge and 'fixed' the MAC issue with filters, and verified that only the correct MACs were getting through, but I *STILL* get connection drops for no reason. -- Ok, so what does work? Drilling a PPTP through to a provider works. That is what I finally did. I drilled PPTP through the U-Verse to my old provider, so my *original* IP block from my old ISP (who I still have the DSL line with as a backup) is now running through U-Verse. Let me repeat that... running my iPAD test through my own NAT and wireless network through the PPTP link to bypass the U-Verse router crap and to my old provider, who has LESS bandwidth than the U-Verse link I'm drilling through, works BETTER than running the iPAD test directly on U-Verse through the U-Verse iNID/RG/wireless (bypassing all my own gear). That's it. That's all that works. Even if you were to get a normal u-verse link with dynamic IP and no static IP you are still SEVERELY restricted in what you can do. Your own NAT servers will simply not work well. You would HAVE to use ATT's NAT RG/wireless. You would HAVE to be on a simple bridged network with no other firewall beyond the ATT iNID/RG. You would HAVE to have just one IP assignment for each machine. In otherwords, the simplest of network configurations will work. Nothing else will work very well. -- It isn't ideal, my old ISP can't push 2 MBytes/sec downlink to me through the PPTP link. But neither does it drop connections. And my uplink speed is still good which is the main thing I care about for the DragonFly network. I'm going to stick with the U-Verse so I can get rid of the much costlier COMCAST. However, I am going to cancel the static IP block and stick with drilling the PPTP through to my old ISP (which I'm keeping for the backup DSL line anyway). Sigh. You'd think ATT would be smart enough to do this properly, but after 5 years of trying they are still clueless about IP networks. Maybe in another year or two they will fix their stuff. Or not. -Matt
Hammer recover question
I have a very old server that I was pretty sure was going to fail sometime soon, so I prudently started building a new one. Unfortunately, I wasn't quite fast enough and the boot drive failed this week. When it tries to mount root, it issues the usual successful hammer startup messages and then quickly fails with: *READ_DMA status*=*51*READY,DSC,ERROR *error*=*40*UNCORRECTABLE This was a 1.8.2 system. Having a 1.9 system handy, I plugged the drive (300GB IDE) into it and tried hammer recover for the first time to see what I could save. The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that is snapshots. Tim
Re: Dual booting DragonFlyBSD with WinXP
Has anybody setup a dual boot system with DragonFlyBSD and WinXP? Yes, I use the DragonFly boot loader (installed by boot0cfg(8)). Please make a backup of sector 0 (e.g. use 'boot0cfg -f'), before installing DragonFly boot loader, so you can restore it if needed. There is a minor caveat: 'boot0cfg -o noupdate' doesn't work out here (don't know why); I wanted that to boot WinXP as default; my 'work around' is to put 'boot0cfg -s1 ad0' in /etc/rc.local.shutdown. -thomas
Re: Hammer recover question
:This was a 1.8.2 system. Having a 1.9 system handy, I plugged the drive :(300GB IDE) into it and tried hammer recover for the first time to see what :I could save. The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad :news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been :running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately :50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that :is snapshots. : :Tim It scans the entire disk linearly, so however long that takes is how long recover takes to run. -Matt
Re: Can't mount my hammer filesystem
Thanks for your reply. I don't remember if I installed it on a disklabel or a slice. I will be able to know what I did once I get the usb flash disk with the system and look at the fstab. Hopefully, I didn't lose data because I did several backups before :-) 2011/2/20 Matthew Dillon dil...@apollo.backplane.com: :Hi, : :So I deciced to format the master drive to install the system on and :then get back my data from the slave. But, that's not cool, when I try :to mount I get this message Not a valid HAMMER filesystem. : :Did I destroyed the filesystem by installing the bootblock on both disks ? :Can I get my data back ? How ? : :I tried some commands unsuccessfully : : :# hammer -f /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4 recover /media/dd2/ :hammer: setup_volume: /dev/serno/S1PZJ1DQ508109.s4: Header does not :indicate that this is a hammer volume s4 ? Not s4d ? Did you accidently install HAMMER directly on a slice and not install it in a disklabeled partition? Installing boot blocks would have wiped the header if you installed HAMMER in a slice instead of a partition. The hammer recover code needs information from the volume header at the moment. That's the only piece of the disk it needs to be able to do a recovery scan. It's a design bug that will require a media format change to fix. -Matt
Re: Hammer recover question
On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote: The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that is snapshots. I've had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends up being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual 'bad' portions of disk. So this could take quite a while, just because of how the physical disk is responding.
Re: Hammer recover question
Thanks, guys. Yes, I can see how it would slow down on the bad spots. I'm just happy it's working as well as it is and I'll try to be patient. Any way you can add a progress bar to this thing? :-) Tim On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Justin C. Sherrill jus...@shiningsilence.com wrote: On Sun, February 20, 2011 4:28 pm, Tim Darby wrote: The good news is that it's recovering a ton of data! The bad news is that it's taking an incredible amount of time. So far it's been running 24 hours. Is that to be expected? The bad disk had approximately 50GB on it, as reported by the df utility, but I don't know how much of that is snapshots. I've had disks that go bad, and reading the raw data for recovery ends up being very, very slow just when trying to read from the actual 'bad' portions of disk. So this could take quite a while, just because of how the physical disk is responding.
Re: Can't mount my hammer filesystem
: :Thanks for your reply. : :I don't remember if I installed it on a disklabel or a slice. I will :be able to know what I did once I get the usb flash disk with the :system and look at the fstab. : :Hopefully, I didn't lose data because I did several backups before :-) Ok, if the data is important we *can* recover it, so don't throw it away, but it might require you making the whole image available to me. I would need to add another option to the hammer recover directive to supply the missing info (if the volume header is truly blown away) and experiment a bit to figure out what the offset is in the image. I've been meaning to add the option for a while now but that isn't the real problem. The real problem is that the volume header contains a single piece of info, the data zone offset relative to the base of the hammer filesystem, and it's a bit non-trivial to 'guess' it. -Matt
