On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:17:20 +1000, yudi v wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
> > In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 486, Issue 7, Message: 5
> > On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:25:33 +0200 Roland Smith wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:37:55PM +1000, yudi v wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Ian Smith wrote:
> In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 486, Issue 7, Message: 5
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:25:33 +0200 Roland Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:37:55PM +1000, yudi v wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Is it possible to suspend to disk (hiber
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 486, Issue 7, Message: 5
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 16:25:33 +0200 Roland Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:37:55PM +1000, yudi v wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Is it possible to suspend to disk (hibernate) when using geli for full disk
> > encryption.
>
> A
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:37:55PM +1000, yudi v wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible to suspend to disk (hibernate) when using geli for full disk
> encryption.
As far as I can tell, FreeBSD doesn't support suspend to disk on all
architectures. On amd64 the necessary infrastructure doesn't exist,
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 486, Issue 5, Message: 18
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:37:55 +1000 yudi v wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible to suspend to disk (hibernate) when using geli for full disk
> encryption. My set-up is listed below. So I am going to have an encrypted
> container and Z
e file system where
geliutility is stored (so the root pool cannot be suspended?)
And the onetime option does not support geli suspend.
Thank you.
Yudi
PS. I haven't received any response to the email below, if someone would
still like to answer some of the questions at the end, that would b
Hi,
I managed to install with "geli+root on ZFS" setup but have a few
questions. Most of the instructions just list commands but offer very
little explanation.
I adapted the instructions in
https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE to suit my needs.
Here's the
It should boot, although i havent run that configuration myself so cant say
for certain
have a look at gpart backup and restore for the labels, as you might as
well make them the same and expand any swap space across all four drives.
DOnt forget to install the bootloader as well
Alternatively you
Hi,
I have the current situation:
sdb@gigawattmomma$ zpool status zroot
NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
zroot ONLINE 0 0 0
mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gpt/disk0 ONLINE 0 0 0
gpt/disk1 O
Julian H. Stacey berklix.com> writes:
>
> jb.1234abcd gmail.com 's ref to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578470
> relates to Linux upgrade procedures & /root
> I don't see it affects how we should perceive an idealised Unix.
>
The upgr
Polytropon writes:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:25:44 +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> ( I'd guess OpenBSD might go for a tighter /root though, as they're
>> supposedly keen on security. )
>
> Currently I've got no OpenBSD installation at hand to verify,
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:25:44 +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> Before we might ask (via send-pr) for it to be commited,
> we should various of us run
> chmod 750 /root;chown root:wheel /root
> & give it a couple of months to see if problems.
Done years ago:
drwxr-x--- 7
missions, many of them are common to many
> > > Unices.
> > > I agree that the installer doesn't put anything secret but as a home dir
> > > for the root user it's highly likely that something not intended to be
> > > publicly readable will end up there soon a
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, ASV wrote:
Hi Julian,
you played Devil's advocate well actually as I don't know which idea
would be more audacious, letting httpd access files from your root dir
or exporting /root via nfs. :)
Both of them sound more like a lab scenario than a real one.
Hi Julian,
you played Devil's advocate well actually as I don't know which idea
would be more audacious, letting httpd access files from your root dir
or exporting /root via nfs. :)
Both of them sound more like a lab scenario than a real one.
I understand that launching a "chmod 70
and/or save time.
I think the 0755 permissions for /root are correct as default.
If you are concerned about "others", you harden it to 0750 (after all you
are the boos, the "root", anyway).
Otherwise, you may create conditions which cause trouble for others, for
example:
https://b
are common to many
> Unices.
> I agree that the installer doesn't put anything secret but as a home dir
> for the root user it's highly likely that something not intended to be
> publicly readable will end up there soon after the installation.
> Which IMHO it's true als
Thanks for your reply Polytropon,
I'm using FreeBSD since few years already and I'm kind of aware of the
"dynamics" related to permissions, many of them are common to many
Unices.
I agree that the installer doesn't put anything secret but as a home dir
for the root use
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:34:41 +0200, ASV wrote:
> There's any reason (and should be a fairly good one) why the /root
> directory permissions by default are set to 755 (for sure on releases
> 8.0/8.1/9.0/9.1)
This is the default permission for user directories, as root
is consid
ASV writes:
> This is a very 'trivial' question but it's bugging me since quite a
> while now so I gotta ask.
>
> There's any reason (and should be a fairly good one) why the /root
> directory permissions by default are set to 755 (for sure on releases
> 8.0
On 06/26/13 15:47, Ayan George wrote:
> ASV:
>> This is a very 'trivial' question but it's bugging me since quite a
>> while now so I gotta ask.
>>
>> There's any reason (and should be a fairly good one) why the /root
>> directory permissions b
ASV:
> This is a very 'trivial' question but it's bugging me since quite a
> while now so I gotta ask.
>
> There's any reason (and should be a fairly good one) why the /root
> directory permissions by default are set to 755 (for sure on releases
> 8.0/8.1/9.
This is a very 'trivial' question but it's bugging me since quite a
while now so I gotta ask.
There's any reason (and should be a fairly good one) why the /root
directory permissions by default are set to 755 (for sure on releases
8.0/8.1/9.0/9.1)???
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Michael Sierchio wrote:
> AFAIK Softupdates journaling still breaks snapshot functionality - which
> makes it unusable for me. I wouldn't assume that the O.P. doesn't want we
> he's asking for.
Fixed awhile ago unless there is new bug on that. Haven't tried.
htt
hello all,
i have a question about root partition. i want to know when this partition
is mounted in bootstrap process? is root mounted before kernel loading?
more over, i heard that root partition is mounted read-only in boot process
before loading kernel. after that kernel is loaded and all
hy i can not do any thing in fixit mode:(
>>>
>>> is this a true procedure? i mean maybe i should do any thing else
>>> because
>>> freebsd handbook set journaling for user partition in single user mode
>>> not
>>> in fixit mode. i test it and it
artition in single user mode not
in fixit mode. i test it and it works well, but for root partition i can
not do the same because root partition can not be unmount in single user
mode.
any hints or comments are really appreciated.
thanks in advance
Hi,
i remember having similar error messa
l partition for your root
partition? can you tell me step by step to compare it with my steps?
i really don't know how to set a journal partition for my root:(( i think
it is so simple but it make me busy more than a week:(
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:34 PM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 201
On Thu, 23 May 2013 09:57:50 +0430
s m wrote:
> my problem is, i can not run gjournal command for root partition in
> fixit mode nor single user mode.
Just to check, you did boot into single user mode rather than shut-down
into single use
test it and it works well, but for root partition i can
not do the same because root partition can not be unmount in single user
mode.
any hints or comments are really appreciated.
thanks in advance
Hi,
i remember having similar error messages with glabel some years ago.
The solution w
itted). and -v return no extra log.
i don't know why i can not do any thing in fixit mode:(
is this a true procedure? i mean maybe i should do any thing else because
freebsd handbook set journaling for user partition in single user mode not
in fixit mode. i test it and it works well, but
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:53 PM, s m wrote:
> thanks Michael for your quick reply:)
> yes, i can boot from usb freebsd flash and use fixit mode.
> i have root, var, tmp, usr and swap on my system. i create an extra swap
> partition to use it as journal provider for root partition.
thanks Michael for your quick reply:)
yes, i can boot from usb freebsd flash and use fixit mode.
i have root, var, tmp, usr and swap on my system. i create an extra swap
partition to use it as journal provider for root partition.
in fixit mode, first i run two below command in order to abel load
s1g as
> journal provider for ad3s1a and create ad3s1a.journal which contains ad3s1a
> as data provider and ad3s1g as journal provider.
>
> my problem is, i can not run gjournal command for root partition in fixit
> mode nor single user mode. you mean, i should just use tunefs comman
h contains ad3s1a
as data provider and ad3s1g as journal provider.
my problem is, i can not run gjournal command for root partition in fixit
mode nor single user mode. you mean, i should just use tunefs command on
ad3s1X (root partition)? if yes, then where journal provider for root
partition
s. i can do it for all
> partitions except root in single user mode. i can not do it for root
> because i can not unmount root in single user mode.
>
>
No, but you don't need to. In single user mode, root is mounted read-only.
You can run
thanks guys for your attentions.
i want to setup journaling in FreeBSD 8.2. i compare soft-update and
journaling and choose journaling (it is more suitable for my goals).
i want to enable journaling for all my partitions. i can do it for all
partitions except root in single user mode. i can not
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Warren Block wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Arthur Chance wrote:
>
> On 05/21/13 15:46, Michael Sierchio wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK Softupdates journaling still breaks snapshot functionality - which
>>> makes it unusable for me. I wouldn't assume that the O.P. doesn't want
On Tue, 21 May 2013, Arthur Chance wrote:
On 05/21/13 15:46, Michael Sierchio wrote:
AFAIK Softupdates journaling still breaks snapshot functionality - which
makes it unusable for me. I wouldn't assume that the O.P. doesn't want we
he's asking for.
Good point, I'd forgotten that problem as I
On 05/21/13 15:46, Michael Sierchio wrote:
AFAIK Softupdates journaling still breaks snapshot functionality - which
makes it unusable for me. I wouldn't assume that the O.P. doesn't want we
he's asking for.
Good point, I'd forgotten that problem as I don't use UFS snapshots. I
can imagine it w
r it
>> with
>> -J flag?
>>
>> i think my problem is, my gjournal can not act correctly in fixit mode
>> because i can load it in single user mode and every thing is ok but in
>> fixit mode, i can not load it and all commands return errors.
>>
>> plea
g for it with
-J flag?
i think my problem is, my gjournal can not act correctly in fixit mode
because i can load it in single user mode and every thing is ok but in
fixit mode, i can not load it and all commands return errors.
please help me to make a journal for my root:(((
Look more carefully a
On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:43:34 -0500, saeedeh motlagh
wrote:
thanks Julien, but i think it's not true. man page for newfs seys that
journaling is done via gjournal and in freebsd handbook it says do
journaling with gjournal for UFS file system.
No, he's right. It's generally not recommended t
s, my gjournal can not act correctly in fixit mode
because i can load it in single user mode and every thing is ok but in
fixit mode, i can not load it and all commands return errors.
please help me to make a journal for my root:(((
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Julien Cigar wrote:
> On 05
(for example /usr), load gjournal, add journal partition to
/usr partition.
this procedure works well for user and other partitions except
root because
i can not unmount it.
should i set up journaling in fixit mode with gpart? how? i
try different
journal partition to /usr
>> partition.
>> this procedure works well for user and other partitions except root
>> because
>> i can not unmount it.
>>
>> should i set up journaling in fixit mode with gpart? how? i try different
>> ways but none of them work f
ample /usr), load gjournal, add journal partition to /usr partition.
this procedure works well for user and other partitions except root because
i can not unmount it.
should i set up journaling in fixit mode with gpart? how? i try different
ways but none of them work for me:((
On Tue, May 21, 2013
xcept root because
i can not unmount it.
should i set up journaling in fixit mode with gpart? how? i try different
ways but none of them work for me:((
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Michael Sierchio wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM, s m wrote:
>
>> hello everybody
>
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM, s m wrote:
> hello everybody
>
> i want to setup a journal partition for my root partition. but i do not
> know how to do that. in FreeBSD handbook, it is done in single user mode,
> unmount the desired partition and assign the journal partition
hello everybody
i want to setup a journal partition for my root partition. but i do not
know how to do that. in FreeBSD handbook, it is done in single user mode,
unmount the desired partition and assign the journal partition to it. i
test this procedure and it is done for /usr partition but for
On 02/26/2013 04:31 PM, Chad M Stewart wrote:
I've been down this road recently with 9.1-release. I ended up adding these
lines to end of my script
## The next two are "hacks" in my book, without the last line, on reboot
## it gets stuck trying to find zfs:zroot/ROOT, but so
I've been down this road recently with 9.1-release. I ended up adding these
lines to end of my script
## The next two are "hacks" in my book, without the last line, on reboot
## it gets stuck trying to find zfs:zroot/ROOT, but somehow the -f or reboot
"fixes"
# this
mailing list, the subject of the thread is
"[HEADSUP] zfs root pool mounting", if you chose to search for it on
your own.
on 28/11/2012 20:35 Andriy Gapon said the following:
Recently some changes were made to how a root pool is opened for
root filesystem
mounting. Previously the
That was my understanding, too, but the instructions on the wiki say there's no
need to copy the cache file. In fact, there is no cache file to copy, since the
pool is created with
zpool create -o altroot=/mnt -O canmount=off zroot mirror /dev/gpt/g0zfs
/dev/gpt/g1zfs
No cache file. The w
On Feb 25, 2013, at 10:14 AM, bw wrote:
> On 02/25/2013 03:13 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:42 AM, bw.mail.lists wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, I tried to follow
>>> https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE, but ended up
>>> with a system that didn't know how to mo
ing kernel modules..."
kldload opensolaris
kldload zfs
kldload geom_mirror
echo "done"
echo 'Setting swap as mirror...'
gmirror label gswap /dev/gpt/g0swap /dev/gpt/g1swap
echo 'done'
echo "Creating zroot..."
zpool create -o altroot=/mnt -O canmount=off
On Feb 24, 2013, at 4:42 AM, bw.mail.lists wrote:
> Basically, I tried to follow
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/GPTZFSBoot/9.0-RELEASE, but ended up with
> a system that didn't know how to mount /.
>
> There are two scripts attached.
I did not see any attachments.
> The main differen
part where it mounts the root
partition, it stopped with 'error 2' 'unknown file system'. I could
import the pool when booting from LiveFS, I wrote to it, it was working
fine, but at boot it just refused to be mounted as /.
zfswithcache.sh from http://strahlert.net/wordpre
2013/2/22 David Demelier :
> Sorry didn't read that you have a MBR slice instead of GPT
>
> then you should take a look at that one
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/ZFSBootPartition
I have used that one, unfortunately I was unable to boot.
___
freebs
something like
>
> gpart bootcode -b /boot/pmbr ada0
> gpart bootcode -p /boot/gptzfsboot -i 1 ada0
>
> (The second assume that you have a freebsd-boot as first index in ada0)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> 2013/2/22 uki
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to install freebsd9 (
t;
> I want to install freebsd9 (stable) on zfs root, unfortunately my bios
> is unable to recognize GPT discs.
> I'm using MBR disc, with BSD slice (on mbr index 4) containing
> freebsd-zfs filesystem.
>
> I've no idea how to make it bootable, I've tried using:
Hi,
I want to install freebsd9 (stable) on zfs root, unfortunately my bios
is unable to recognize GPT discs.
I'm using MBR disc, with BSD slice (on mbr index 4) containing
freebsd-zfs filesystem.
I've no idea how to make it bootable, I've tried using:
zpool export sys
dd if=/
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013, Zyumbilev, Peter wrote:
Allow "sudo bash" only.
The OP didn't want to use sudo because it's not in the base system. I
would guess he also doesn't want to use bash, since it too is not in the
base system.
[ snip ]
--
Chris Hill ch...@monochrome.org
**
e first one is ugly.
1. Rename su and make it executable only by root, so you can't bypass
the part that handles the email alert:
# mv /usr/bin/su /usr/bin/sulocal
# chmod 700 /usr/bin/sulocal
2. Create a script in a directory accessible only by root:
BSD system with users in the wheel group,
>> > what is the best practise to send out a notification
>> > via E-Mail if one of them becomes root via su? In an ideal
>> > case the E-Mail would contain the user name and the time.
>>
>> I'm not sure if t
Robert Huff writes:
> Polytropon writes:
>
>> > given there is a FreeBSD system with users in the wheel group,
>> > what is the best practise to send out a notification
>> > via E-Mail if one of them becomes root via su? In an ideal
>> > case the
Polytropon writes:
> > given there is a FreeBSD system with users in the wheel group,
> > what is the best practise to send out a notification
> > via E-Mail if one of them becomes root via su? In an ideal
> > case the E-Mail would contain the user name and the time
On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:24:52 +0100, Matthias Petermann wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> given there is a FreeBSD system with users in the wheel group, what is
> the best practise
> to send out a notification via E-Mail if one of them becomes root via
> su? In an ideal
> case
Hello,
given there is a FreeBSD system with users in the wheel group, what is
the best practise
to send out a notification via E-Mail if one of them becomes root via
su? In an ideal
case the E-Mail would contain the user name and the time.
I thought about using sudo but this is not in the
I am running FreeBSD-9
After installing xorg-minimal by
#pkg_add -r xorg-minimal
and installing fonts by
#cd /usr/port/x11-fonts/urwfonts
#make install clean
I installed Irsis.
The problem occured after I issued the #startx , an error message appeared for
a very short time.I could no
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:34:51 +0100
David Demelier wrote:
> I think a good idea would be to store the key directly in the
> bootloader, but that needs a large enough partition scheme that can
> store the bootloader (boot0 or boot1) plus the encryption key.
> However this needs to add support for
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Full disk encryption without root partition
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at
On 28/12/2012 12:29, mhca12 wrote:
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, C-S wrote:
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:18:40 +0100
From: mhca12
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Full disk encryption without root partition
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On
On 29/12/2012 23:53, Polytropon wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:43:29 +0100, Martin Laabs wrote:
So from the security point of view it might be a good choice to have a
unencrypted and (hardware) readonly boot partition.
To prevent unintended modification by of the
boot process's components, an
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:43:29 +0100
Martin Laabs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Are there any plans or is there already support for full
> >> disk encryption without the need for a boot partition?
>
> Well - what would be your benefit? OK - you might not create another
> partition but I think this is not th
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 22:43:29 +0100, Martin Laabs wrote:
> So from the security point of view it might be a good choice to have a
> unencrypted and (hardware) readonly boot partition.
To prevent unintended modification by of the
boot process's components, an option would be to have the
system boot
Hi,
>> Are there any plans or is there already support for full
>> disk encryption without the need for a boot partition?
Well - what would be your benefit? OK - you might not create another
partition but I think this is not the problem.
>From the point of security you would not get any improveme
2012-12-26 22:17, mhca12 skrev:
Are there any plans or is there already support for full
disk encryption without the need for a root partition?
Not exactly what asked for, but here it is
http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=2775
___
freebsd
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:33 AM, C-S wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:18:40 +0100
>> From: mhca12
>> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
>> Subject: Re: Full disk encryption without root partition
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> Content-Type: text/p
> Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 22:18:40 +0100
> From: mhca12
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: Full disk encryption without root partition
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17 PM, mhca12 wr
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:17 PM, mhca12 wrote:
> Are there any plans or is there already support for full
> disk encryption without the need for a root partition?
I am sorry, I certainly meant to write "boot partition".
___
f
Are there any plans or is there already support for full
disk encryption without the need for a root partition?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Rick Miller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I remember one time seeing a site that explained why soft-updates was
> not enabled for the root filesystem. I tried looking for it earlier,
> but failed to locate it. Is there someone who knows where it is?
Thank
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:50:42 -0500
Rick Miller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I remember one time seeing a site that explained why soft-updates was
> not enabled for the root filesystem. I tried looking for it earlier,
> but failed to locate it. Is there someone who knows where it is?
On 12/04/12 22:50, Rick Miller wrote:
Hi all,
I remember one time seeing a site that explained why soft-updates was
not enabled for the root filesystem. I tried looking for it earlier,
but failed to locate it. Is there someone who knows where it is?
--
Rick
Hi Rick
Maybe in the FAQ? http
Hi all,
I remember one time seeing a site that explained why soft-updates was
not enabled for the root filesystem. I tried looking for it earlier,
but failed to locate it. Is there someone who knows where it is?
--
Rick
--
Sent from my mobile device
Take care
Rick Miller
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:22:06 -0700, Gary Aitken wrote:
> Just curious; what's the purpose of /tmp/fam-root, and what is written there?
> Is it simply where the os writes stuff which is sensitive,
> and putting it in a rwx-- directory avoids potential security issues
> rega
Gary Aitken dreamchaser.org> writes:
>
> Just curious; what's the purpose of /tmp/fam-root, and what is written there?
> Is it simply where the os writes stuff which is sensitive,
> and putting it in a rwx-- directory avoids potential security issues
> regarding fil
Just curious; what's the purpose of /tmp/fam-root, and what is written there?
Is it simply where the os writes stuff which is sensitive,
and putting it in a rwx-- directory avoids potential security issues
regarding file access?
or is there more to it than
On 25 October 2012 18:55, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 18:33, Warren Block wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone else experienced this problem today ?
>>>
>>> We slave the root zone and have received "
On 25 October 2012 18:33, Warren Block wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
>
>> Anyone else experienced this problem today ?
>>
>> We slave the root zone and have received "signature expired" errors.
>
>
> Found this:
>
> https:/
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote:
Anyone else experienced this problem today ?
We slave the root zone and have received "signature expired" errors.
Found this:
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/pipermail/dns-operations/2011-March/007116.html
which leads to this:
http
Hello list,
Anyone else experienced this problem today ?
We slave the root zone and have received "signature expired" errors.
We slave the root zone like so:
zone "." {
type slave;
file "/etc/namedb/slave/root.slave";
masters
On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:30 AM, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:13:41 -0700
> Devin Teske wrote:
>
>> When two files have the same inode, they are "hard links" to each other.
>> Unlike a "soft link" (or "symbolic link" as they are more appropriately
>> called), which stores a de
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:13:41 -0700
Devin Teske wrote:
> When two files have the same inode, they are "hard links" to each other.
> Unlike a "soft link" (or "symbolic link" as they are more appropriately
> called), which stores a destination-path of the target, a hard link
> instead looks and acts
gt; A corresponding "ls -li /stand2" should show that the majority of files all
> have the same inode (whereas if you use cp, "ls -li" will instead show
> different inodes for every file that was copied, because again, cp(1) does
> not support retention of hard-links).
>
>
&
all have the same inode (whereas if you use cp, "ls -li" will instead show
> different inodes for every file that was copied, because again, cp(1) does
> not support retention of hard-links).
>
>
>
>
> For example when we mount mfsroot image we get:
>
> $ df -h /
> $ df -h /mnt/
>
> FilesystemSizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/md0 3.9M3.3M 534k86%/mnt
>
> $ ls -lhs /mnt/stand
> ...
> 766 -r-xr-xr-x 30 root wheel 3M 10 apr 2012 dhclient
> 766 -r-xr-xr-x 30 root wheel 3M 10 apr
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Stanislav Zaharov
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a question regarding the mfsroot file system organization on
> installation cd.
> How is it possible that we have bigger binary files in ls list while actual
> occupied space is less. But when we try to copy these files
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:07:26 -0600, Gary Aitken wrote:
> Thanks, all.
>
> On 09/26/12 19:18, Polytropon wrote:
> > That's why you should be using the "toor" account and leave "root"
> > unchanged.
>
> I realized that about the time I learned I
1 - 100 of 2374 matches
Mail list logo
