Re: Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

>> Is the assumption that you are supposed to reboot the server with the >>> ISO attached and pop into a shell to complete these steps? >>> >>> [1] https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#GrowPartition >>> >>> -- >>> Lev Lazinskiy >>>

Re: Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

ause they are actively being used. > > > > Is the assumption that you are supposed to reboot the server with the > > ISO attached and pop into a shell to complete these steps? > > > > [1] https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#GrowPartition > > > > -- > &

Re: Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

a running server. > You must umount them first. > Is the assumption that you are supposed to reboot the server with the > ISO attached and pop into a shell to complete these steps? > > [1] https://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq14.html#GrowPartition > > -- > Lev Lazinskiy > If it

Re: Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

Hi Brian, Thank you very much, I really appreciate the help. On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 03:46:27PM -0500, Brian Brombacher wrote: > Boot into single user mode. At the boot loader prompt, type boot -s. This > will drop you to a root shell. > > > > > On Nov 17, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Lev Lazinskiy

Re: Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

Boot into single user mode. At the boot loader prompt, type boot -s. This will drop you to a root shell. > On Nov 17, 2019, at 3:39 PM, Lev Lazinskiy wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I am new to openBSD, so forgive me if I am missing something obvious. > > I recently installed openBSD on a

Best Practices for growing disk partitions on a server

Hi folks, I am new to openBSD, so forgive me if I am missing something obvious. I recently installed openBSD on a server using the auto-partition layout during installation and am quickly starting to run out of disk space. I have read the section in the FAQ [1] regarding how to grow a disk

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

> On 2017-11-05, Jay Hart wrote: >>> On 2017/11/02 20:26, Jay Hart wrote: > On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: >> Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, >> >> Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have >> a feeling I

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

On 2017-11-05, Jay Hart wrote: >> On 2017/11/02 20:26, Jay Hart wrote: >>> > On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: >>> >> Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, >>> >> >>> >> Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a >>> >> feeling I need to

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

A random shot in the dark, but sometimes it happens. Perhaps unmount /usr/obj and/or /usr/src and confirm there is no existing files under either? It’s rare, but sometimes happens, that we set things up one way, then change it later. And mounting a filesystem on top of an existing directory

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

> On 2017/11/02 20:26, Jay Hart wrote: >> > On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: >> >> Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, >> >> >> >> Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a >> >> feeling I need to >> swap >> >> /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:12:54PM +0100, Alexander Hall wrote: > > > On November 3, 2017 8:41:20 AM GMT+01:00, Otto Moerbeek > wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:07:37AM +0100, Stephane HUC "PengouinBSD" > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Le 11/03/17 à 07:27, Otto Moerbeek a écrit :

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

On November 3, 2017 8:41:20 AM GMT+01:00, Otto Moerbeek wrote: >On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:07:37AM +0100, Stephane HUC "PengouinBSD" >wrote: > >> >> Le 11/03/17 à 07:27, Otto Moerbeek a écrit : >> (...) >> > >> > My guess is that if you use duids in fstab then you should call

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 08:07:37AM +0100, Stephane HUC "PengouinBSD" wrote: > > Le 11/03/17 à 07:27, Otto Moerbeek a écrit : > (...) > > > > My guess is that if you use duids in fstab then you should call it by > > that name withc fsck (which uses fstab). Alternatively, specify the > > mount

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

> => But then why is it written in the FAQ this below, since it doesn't > seem to work? (at least with stable amd64 OpenBSD) i tested it before giving my ok, but apparently i overlooked this detail. fixed, thanks

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

Le 11/03/17 à 07:27, Otto Moerbeek a écrit : (...) > > My guess is that if you use duids in fstab then you should call it by > that name withc fsck (which uses fstab). Alternatively, specify the > mount point. > > -Otto > > Interesting point of view, but: 1/ I've not change the

Re: FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

On Fri, Nov 03, 2017 at 05:08:53AM +0100, Stephane HUC "PengouinBSD" wrote: > Hi... > > there seems to be a problem with fsck command on OpenBSD 6.2 amd64 -stable. > > Into the FAQ14, "Growing disk partitions" section, it's written: > > "Before the

FAQ14: Growing disk partitions: fdisk

Hi... there seems to be a problem with fsck command on OpenBSD 6.2 amd64 -stable. Into the FAQ14, "Growing disk partitions" section, it's written: "Before the partition can be mounted again, its integrity must be checked with fsck(8): # fsck sd0h " but one of our foru

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

On 2017/11/02 20:26, Jay Hart wrote: > > On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: > >> Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, > >> > >> Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a > >> feeling I need to swap > >> /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

> On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: >> Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, >> >> Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a >> feeling I need to swap >> /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for /usr. > >> /dev/wd0f 2.0G

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

On 2017-10-30, Jay Hart wrote: > Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, > > Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a > feeling I need to swap > /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for /usr. > /dev/wd0f 2.0G1.7G

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

On 2017-10-30, "Jay Hart" wrote: > Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a > feeling I need to swap > /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for /usr. > > What is the best way to go about that? * Drop into single user mode. * Unmount

Re: Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Jay Hart wrote: > Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, > > Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a > feeling I need to swap > /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for /usr. > > What is the best way to go about that?

Need to swap partitions: /tmp amd /usr

Good Evening Fellow OpenBSDers, Below is currently how I have my disk laid out partition wise. I have a feeling I need to swap /tmp and /usr in order to gain additional space for /usr. What is the best way to go about that? Filesystem SizeUsed Avail Capacity Mounted

Re: Resize partitions?

On 17/10/04 23:21, Alexander Hall wrote: On October 4, 2017 6:58:52 PM GMT+02:00, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: /.../ And I don't know OpenBSD enough to know how "dangerous" it is to use "pkg_delete -a". I used similar functions with linux-distributions and they wanted

Re: Resize partitions?

On October 4, 2017 6:58:52 PM GMT+02:00, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: > /.../ And I >don't know OpenBSD enough to know how "dangerous" it is to use >"pkg_delete -a". I used similar functions with linux-distributions and >they wanted to remove a tool like git because

Re: Resize partitions?

because I had not enough space left. Is there a way to resize partitions? I guess probably not because there is no volume manager, right? I used originally the suggested layout by the installer. Any idea what could fill up the space on /? The partition is only 1GB in size and if I see it correctly only

Re: Resize partitions?

ed because I had not enough space left. Is >> there a way to resize partitions? I guess probably not because >> there is no volume manager, right? I used originally the suggested >> layout by the installer. Any idea what could fill up the space on >> /? The partition is on

Re: Resize partitions?

ding a > > snapshot failed because I had not enough space left. > > Is there a way to resize partitions? I guess probably not because there is > > no volume manager, right? > > I used originally the suggested layout by the installer. Any idea what > > could fill up t

Re: Resize partitions?

On 17/10/03 13:48, Niels Kobschaetzki wrote: Hi, I am running currently constantly into the problem that I do not have enough space left for installing packages and today even upgrading a snapshot failed because I had not enough space left. Is there a way to resize partitions? I guess

Resize partitions?

Hi, I am running currently constantly into the problem that I do not have enough space left for installing packages and today even upgrading a snapshot failed because I had not enough space left. Is there a way to resize partitions? I guess probably not because there is no volume manager

Re: Playing (screwing up ) with partitions

Got it !! Thank you for the advice. I will restore it via disklabel. > El 04/07/2017, a las 23:28, Ted Unangst escribió: > > Manuel Solis wrote: >> My question is: >> I know that i am missing some step to fulfill the shrinking process >> but in the FAQ there is only a

Re: Playing (screwing up ) with partitions

Manuel Solis wrote: > My question is: > I know that i am missing some step to fulfill the shrinking process > but in the FAQ there is only a way to grow fs and i didn’t find the shrinking > fs, and in the book says that i should move the partition, well it does not > say it but i figured out

Playing (screwing up ) with partitions

, should i make another partition in the unused space to mount /usr/local or there is a way that if grows naturally? (because i tried in the disklabel options and it made me imply that i could not grow it from there since it is between partitions in the continued space. My new configuration

Re: fdisk partitions + installation + whole disk

or is this just an > "arbitrary" decision from the OpenBSD team? That behavior was present in the original import in 1995 when OpenBSD and NetBSD split and may go back to Jolitz 386BSD. Why was it done? My *guess* would be to be consistent between whole disk and multi-boot installs, where t

fdisk partitions + installation + whole disk

Hello. I noticed that when I choose the automatic installation on the whole disk, OpenBSD always gets in the 4th fdisk (primary) partition. As I'm curious, I wonder if there is a legitimate reason for this fact or is this just an "arbitrary" decision from the OpenBSD team? The operating system

Re: Softraid crypto - howto mount partitions from multiple devices at boot?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:17:16PM +0200 or thereabouts, Jan Vlach wrote: Hello misc, I have a small netbook with two flash devices - 32G and 4G. I'm using softraid crypto discipline with passphrase on the 32G one. That works fine. I would also like to use softraid crypto on the second

Softraid crypto - howto mount partitions from multiple devices at boot?

Hello misc, I have a small netbook with two flash devices - 32G and 4G. I'm using softraid crypto discipline with passphrase on the 32G one. That works fine. I would also like to use softraid crypto on the second (4G) device and have it also mounted at boot. How to achieve this? What is current

Re: More partitions!?

, as /usr/bld/src, /usr/bld/ports, /usr/bld/obj, /usr/bld/xenocara, and /usr/bld/xobj, it would allow me to free up several device partitions while still keeping the build tree separate from the rest of /usr. It would also make allocating space and inodes for the build tree a bit more flexible. refer

Re: panic on beaglebone black with sdcard with no partitions

On Jan 05 21:21:10, dtuc...@zip.com.au wrote: On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darren Tucker dtuc...@zip.com.au wrote: [..] sd0 at scsibus0 targ 1 lun 0: SD/MMC, Drive #01, SCSI2 0/direct fixed sd0: 7580MB, 512 bytes/sector, 15523840 sectors scsibus1 at sdmmc1: 2 targets, initiator 0

panic on beaglebone black with sdcard with no partitions

I just installed -current on a beaglebone black. I dd'ed the miniroot onto an sdcard and installed onto the internal emmc, which worked fine. SInce it's an early model device the internal flash is only 2G so I wanted to put /usr/{src,obj} onto the sdcard so I deleted the two msdos partitions

Re: panic on beaglebone black with sdcard with no partitions

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Darren Tucker dtuc...@zip.com.au wrote: [..] sd0 at scsibus0 targ 1 lun 0: SD/MMC, Drive #01, SCSI2 0/direct fixed sd0: 7580MB, 512 bytes/sector, 15523840 sectors scsibus1 at sdmmc1: 2 targets, initiator 0 sd1 at scsibus1 targ 1 lun 0: SD/MMC, Drive #01,

Re: mount partitions from old softRAID

virtual disk. You can't mount that partition any more than you mount an entire disk. You want the partitions INSIDE that virtual disk, which should have come up in your dmesg at boot as probably sd2 (or later, if there were other sd-ish devices) Unless this is a usb disk inserted after the machine

mount partitions from old softRAID

A while ago, I had 2 disks combined in RAID-1 with softraid Later, 1 disk died. I just removed and kept the good remaining disk and now I want to grab some files off of it. The drive shows up as sd1 in dmesg $disklabel sd1 shows that the partition in question is d and has fstype RAID but it won't

Re: mount partitions from old softRAID

mount that partition any more than you mount an entire disk. You want the partitions INSIDE that virtual disk, which should have come up in your dmesg at boot as probably sd2 (or later, if there were other sd-ish devices) Nick.

Two primary OBSD partitions on a HDD

I read fdisk(8) carefully (At least I think so), but I repeatedly failed to install two OBSDS on two primary partitions of a HDD. The idea was to realize a multiboot by toogleing the boot-flag to the primary partition of the particular OBSD system I want to boot. However, I think

Re: Two primary OBSD partitions on a HDD

josef.win...@email.de wrote I read fdisk(8) carefully (At least I think so), but I repeatedly failed to install two OBSDS on two primary partitions of a HDD. The idea was to realize a multiboot by toogleing the boot-flag to the primary partition of the particular OBSD system I want to boot

Re: Two primary OBSD partitions on a HDD

On 25 Aug 2013 at 10:50, Tony Abernethy wrote: josef.win...@email.de wrote I read fdisk(8) carefully (At least I think so), but I repeatedly failed to install two OBSDS on two primary partitions of a HDD. The idea was to realize a multiboot by toogleing the boot-flag to the primary

Re: Two primary OBSD partitions on a HDD

Hi, Before investigating further, be sure to read the FAQ about i386 disk layout and pay attention to the two very important things there: slices and partitions.

resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems

I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have

Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 07:46:34PM +1100, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Don't try to make a

Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems

partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. /etc/mk.conf PORTSDIR=real location

Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 19:46, John Tate wrote: I had a problem building something in ports ports with a default 2.0gb /usr. I tried moving ports to /home/usr/ports to /usr/ports but I get... Fatal: /usr/ports is a symlink. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions

Re: resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems

. Please set to the real directory Can I resize disklabel partitions and ffs filesystems? If I can't I'm going to have to reinstall :-(. growfs. If you're lucky you won't screw up and lose everything. As the name implies, it only grows, you need to have or create free space at the end

How to use fdisk and manually create partitions at 4K increments?

I'd like to install OBSD, and I'd like to manually create my partition structure. 1.) Can someone tell me how to use fdisk to create my partitions at 4K increments? 2.) How do I confirm that the partitions are, in fact, aligned at 4K intervals after I've created them? 3.) Can you recommend

Re: How to use fdisk and manually create partitions at 4K increments?

fdisk to create my partitions at 4K increments? 2.) How do I confirm that the partitions are, in fact, aligned at 4K intervals after I've created them? 3.) Can you recommend a method of testing the performance of one disk that IS aligned at 4K and another disk that is NOT? I'd be very

when re-install how to make leave some partitions untouched simple

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq4.html says Install: load OpenBSD onto the system, overwriting whatever may have been there. Note that it is possible to leave some partitions untouched in this process, such as a /home, but otherwise, assume everything else is overwritten. NOTE for re-installers

Re: when re-install how to make leave some partitions untouched simple

more than one partitions to leave untouched, to save more steps time, I choose (E)dit auto layout rather than (C)ustom Layout#,delete some partitions, add some partitions carefully and leave mount point untouched. the steps are not simple and error-prone, should we improve the installer ? You

Re: when re-install how to make leave some partitions untouched simple

On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 12:54:30PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: You are assuming that 1) the disklabel was previously done by using auto layout and wasn't edited, and 2) the disklabel command in the new install kernel uses the same partition sizes and layout as the command used for the

Resizing partitions on expanded vmware disk

the hard disk from 10gb to 20gb sucessfully.Now i'm trying to recognize how can i expand all partitions automatically or just the /usr using the new space without loosing the data.I read on FAQ that there is a way it can be done using disklabel and newfs but i should move all the data

Re: Resizing partitions on expanded vmware disk

The easier way - create a new disc image and use bsd.rd to partition, label and format it as needed. When done with it, mount all of Your volumes and use tar or cp to populate the new image. A side effect of this approach is that You can test the new image before loosing the old one. You could

Re: Resizing partitions on expanded vmware disk

partitions are not in the same order on the second disk or if you use DUIDs rather than the /dev/sd0x format). You could also use disklabel and growfs growfs only lets you expand the end of the filesystem into adjacent space, it's the wrong tool for this job.

Re: Resizing partitions on expanded vmware disk

Ok i created a new scsi hd (30gb) and put it as second disk on vm. Booted OpenBSD and on boot prompt i gave boot sd0a:/bsd.rd Then i choose (I) for installation and selected the 2nd disk (sd1).Using disklabel it automatically created all partitions and i just resized f: (/usr) partition and gave

Re: Resizing partitions on expanded vmware disk

On 08/20/11 11:05, Yannis Milios wrote: Ok i created a new scsi hd (30gb) and put it as second disk on vm. Booted OpenBSD and on boot prompt i gave boot sd0a:/bsd.rd Then i choose (I) for installation and selected the 2nd disk (sd1).Using disklabel it automatically created all partitions and i

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Kenneth R Westerback kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote: 1) Don't cross post. 2) Install something more recent that 4.6 (e.g. 4.9) and you will find that partitions and filesystems will be aligned on 4K boundaries. 3) If you can, without trying hard, end up

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

List: openbsd-tech Subject:impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears) From: Robert robert () openbsd ! pap ! st Date: 2010-01-06 22:54:34 Message-ID: 20100106235434.55963d32 () openbsd ! pap ! st Hello, i did some measurements on the impact

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

I'm starting to get angry about the _horrible_ performance on this drive (WD10EARS-00Y), some developer ever got a chance to see something about this? The default alignment was changed. Do a 'disklabel sd0', if / starts at sector 63 then it was created before this change was made, in which

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 03:43:23AM -0500, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: (( If you read this far, have a cookie and wonder with me about that quick extraction... The system this drive is in has the same board, but everything else is slower and not idle when meassured...))

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

of partitions on all disks to mitigate this problem. the only issue you may have with a default install on one of these drives is a small fragment size on the ffs partitions. i have had a look at querying disks for their physical and logical block alignments and offsets, but the the WD??EARS-00? drives dont

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:08 AM, David Gwynne l...@animata.net wrote: i have had a look at querying disks for their physical and logical block alignments and offsets, but the the WD??EARS-00? drives dont report this info. according to western digital, the next generation of these drives

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:22 AM, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 04:15:51AM -0500, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:08 AM, David Gwynne l...@animata.net wrote: i have had a look at querying disks for their physical and logical block

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 04:15:51AM -0500, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda wrote: On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 4:08 AM, David Gwynne l...@animata.net wrote: i have had a look at querying disks for their physical and logical block alignments and offsets, but the the WD??EARS-00? drives dont report

Re: impact of unaligned partitions/slices on 4kB sector drives (wd10ears)

1) Don't cross post. 2) Install something more recent that 4.6 (e.g. 4.9) and you will find that partitions and filesystems will be aligned on 4K boundaries. 3) If you can, without trying hard, end up with misaligned partitions on a fresh 4.9 install then please detail the steps you followed

Re: partitions

On 05/02/10 21:20, Matthew Dempsky wrote: On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: Well, /usr/ports is updated, but never needs to be erased unless really messed up by user error That's true of /usr/src too though, right? Here is a guess: Perhaps

partitions

Hi, I'm new to openbsd. Sorry if the question is obvious to you but I couldn't find the answer in the docs. So here it is: what is the reason why the install suggests so many different partitions? Why not simply / and /home for example? Thanks. Cantabile

Re: partitions

On May 02 10:03:21, Cantabile wrote: Hi, I'm new to openbsd. Sorry if the question is obvious to you but I couldn't find the answer in the docs. So here it is: what is the reason why the install suggests so many different partitions? Why not simply / and /home for example? Don't just

Re: partitions

Cantabile cantabile...@wanadoo.fr writes: I'm new to openbsd. Sorry if the question is obvious to you but I couldn't find the answer in the docs. So here it is: what is the reason why the install suggests so many different partitions? Why not simply / and /home for example? you actually

Re: partitions

On 05/02/10 05:23, Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: Cantabilecantabile...@wanadoo.fr writes: I'm new to openbsd. Sorry if the question is obvious to you but I couldn't find the answer in the docs. So here it is: what is the reason why the install suggests so many different partitions? Why

Re: partitions

Thanks, everybody! Cantabile Le dimanche 02 mai 2010 C 10:03 +0200, Cantabile a C)crit : Hi, I'm new to openbsd. Sorry if the question is obvious to you but I couldn't find the answer in the docs. So here it is: what is the reason why the install suggests so many different partitions? Why

Re: partitions

(local, nodev, nosuid) as partitions are for convenience, not strictly necessary as partitions. One thing that I'm a little curious about is why the installer by default recommends dedicated partitions for /usr/src and /usr/obj, but not /usr/xenocara or /usr/ports.

Re: partitions

, nosuid) /dev/sd0i on /usr/src type ffs (local, nodev, nosuid) as partitions are for convenience, not strictly necessary as partitions. One thing that I'm a little curious about is why the installer by default recommends dedicated partitions for /usr/src and /usr/obj, but not /usr/xenocara

Re: partitions

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Chris Bennett ch...@bennettconstruction.biz wrote: Well, /usr/ports is updated, but never needs to be erased unless really messed up by user error That's true of /usr/src too though, right?

Re: All partitions on Software RAID 1

Holland n...@holland-consulting.netwrote: B Da Bahia wrote: Hello, I'm a newbie to OpenBSD, and I'm trying to install a new system with all partitions (/, et al) on a software RAID 1 discipline. From the FAQs, I see that you don't recommend using RAIDframe + ccd for new installs

Re: All partitions on Software RAID 1

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:26:07 -0200, B Da Bahia wrote The daily/altroot strategy sounds good to me, but I tend to see it as a backup solution instead of a high-availability solution. In my system requirements, downtime is an issue. Then use RAIDframe, which allows Root-on-RAID. But be

All partitions on Software RAID 1

Hello, I'm a newbie to OpenBSD, and I'm trying to install a new system with all partitions (/, et al) on a software RAID 1 discipline. From the FAQs, I see that you don't recommend using RAIDframe + ccd for new installs. But in the softraid manpage, you say that There is no boot support

Re: All partitions on Software RAID 1

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:08:28PM -0300, B Da Bahia wrote: Hello, I'm a newbie to OpenBSD, and I'm trying to install a new system with all partitions (/, et al) on a software RAID 1 discipline. This is not currently possible; boot(8) cannot load from any RAID-ed disk. There are two

Re: All partitions on Software RAID 1

Thanks Joachim. Will do. There are two solutions: you can go with hardware RAID, which can be sufficiently transparent to make boot(8) work, or you can use the altroot mechanism, which makes a nightly copy of your root disk to another partition (which should suffice - your root device

Re: All partitions on Software RAID 1

B Da Bahia wrote: Hello, I'm a newbie to OpenBSD, and I'm trying to install a new system with all partitions (/, et al) on a software RAID 1 discipline. From the FAQs, I see that you don't recommend using RAIDframe + ccd for new installs. But in the softraid manpage, you say

Re: Mounting msdos partitions in fstab

for the error on my part. Bryan wrote: On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 19:23, David Shuman d.shu...@att.net wrote: Question there are reports that OpenBSD handles FAT32 yet the mount_msdos command seems to indicate only FAT partitions of one byte less than 4GB are supported. Is the documentation up to date

Mounting msdos partitions in fstab

Question there are reports that OpenBSD handles FAT32 yet the mount_msdos command seems to indicate only FAT partitions of one byte less than 4GB are supported. Is the documentation up to date and was I lucky because my msdos partition was an empty partition (of around 55GB) so I was inside

Re: Mounting msdos partitions in fstab

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 19:23, David Shuman d.shu...@att.net wrote: Question there are reports that OpenBSD handles FAT32 yet the mount_msdos command seems to indicate only FAT partitions of one byte less than 4GB are supported. Is the documentation up to date and was I lucky because my msdos

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:40:32 +0200 Tor Houghton t...@bogus.net wrote: On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 04:15:51AM +, Miod Vallat wrote: This whole thread is actually one more proof that nobody ever reads the installation notes (INSTALL.*). Miod Oooh, you've just identified a space-saving

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 04:15:51AM +, Miod Vallat wrote: This whole thread is actually one more proof that nobody ever reads the installation notes (INSTALL.*). Miod Oooh, you've just identified a space-saving measure! *ducks*

New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

? [a] C You will now create a Sun-style disklabel on the disk. The disklabel defines how OpenBSD splits up the disk into OpenBSD partitions in which filesystems and swap space are created. You must provide each filesystem's mountpoint in this program. This platform requires that partition offsets

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

, or create (C)ustom layout? [a] C You will now create a Sun-style disklabel on the disk. The disklabel defines how OpenBSD splits up the disk into OpenBSD partitions in which filesystems and swap space are created. You must provide each filesystem's mountpoint in this program. This platform

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

the custom, and make no changes to the partition table, then why does it come back asking me to redo it instead of keep going and then I can re-enter the old mount name in the old partitions as it used to be? Same results with edit auto label as well. I can pass this pass deleting all and recreating all

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

in the old partitions as it used to be? Partition tables do not contain mount point information. Same results with edit auto label as well. I can pass this pass deleting all and recreating all, but before (4.5 and before) I could keep the same label, and yes I needed to enter the mount point

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

'q' and do this, but needs to do 'm' for each partitions and keep the same size, offset, etc the same and provide then the mount point, then save, quit and keep going. If there is a way to skip these additional steps using 'm' on disk unchanged partition between install and just need to type 'q

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

are being asked. Do you see mountpoints on the listing with your partitions? No you don't. So why don't you set them up? I think it is because you prefer writing essays. Am I wrong? Yes you are wrong, and damn infuriating too.

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

Daniel, As made quite clear in Theo's post, a disklabel does not contain any information about mount points. All of the partitions you created in 4.5 exist, but the installer does not know where to mount them, or even if you want to. In 4.6 selecting (C)ustom layout will show you what's

Re: New disklable doesn't keep old partitions if requested

You *NEED* to use 'm' to define mount points, this information will be passed to the installer and won't be retained on-disk. Or 'n' There is a reason why the installer disklabel and fdisk commands both have a 'M' command in them, to show the manual page. Hopefully you are now aware of the

<    1   2   3   4   >