freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 350, Issue 10
Mats Lindbeg
mats.w.lindberg at gmail.com
Sun Feb 20 16:15:48 UTC 2011
19 feb 2011 kl. 23:14 skrev freebsd-questions-request at freebsd.org:
> Send freebsd-questions mailing list submissions to
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> freebsd-questions-request at freebsd.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> freebsd-questions-owner at freebsd.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of freebsd-questions digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Matthew Seaman)
> 2. Re: booting a kernel directly from stage 1/2 (Matthew Seaman)
> 3. Re: booting a kernel directly from stage 1/2 (Alexander Best)
> 4. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Daniel Staal)
> 5. Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD (David)
> 6. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Matthew Seaman)
> 7. Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS? (Maciej Milewski)
> 8. Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD (Matthew Seaman)
> 9. 8.2-PRERELEASE? (Harald Servat)
> 10. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Daniel Staal)
> 11. Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD (David)
> 12. Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD (David Lapsley)
> 13. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (krad)
> 14. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Andy Tornquist)
> 15. Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS?
> (Christopher J. Ruwe)
> 16. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Robert Bonomi)
> 17. Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS? (David Brodbeck)
> 18. How to forward old root mails to an external email address?
> (Andy Wodfer)
> 19. Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address? (Daniel Staal)
> 20. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Matthew Seaman)
> 21. Re: BSD Magazine PDFs (Alfredo Perez)
> 22. Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address? (Andy Wodfer)
> 23. Re: BSD Magazine PDFs (Mike Jeays)
> 24. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (Daniel Staal)
> 25. Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD (David Brodbeck)
> 26. Can motorola v195 be supported as network interface? (Yuri)
> 27. Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address? (RW)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:01:37 +0000
> From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: DStaal at usa.net
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D5FB121.6090102 at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 18/02/2011 15:59, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>
>> I've been reading over the ZFS-only-boot instructions linked here:
>> <http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS> (and further linked from there) and have one
>> worry:
>>
>> Let's say I install a FreeBSD system using a ZFS-only filesystem into a
>> box with hotswapable hard drives, configured with some redundancy. Time
>> passes, one of the drives fails, and it is replaced and rebuilt using the
>> ZFS tools. (Possibly on auto, or possibly by just doing a 'zpool
>> replace'.)
>>
>> Is that box still bootable? (It's still running, but could it *boot*?)
>
> Why wouldn't it be? The configuration in the Wiki article sets aside a
> small freebsd-boot partition on each drive, and the instructions tell
> you to install boot blocks as part of that partitioning process. You
> would have to repeat those steps when you install your replacement drive
> before you added the new disk into your zpool.
>
> So long as the BIOS can read the bootcode from one or other drives, and
> can then access /boot/zfs/zpool.cache to learn about what zpools you
> have, then the system should boot.
>
>> Extend further: If *all* the original drives are replaced (not at the same
>> time, obviously) and rebuilt/resilvered using the ZFS utilities, is the
>> box still bootable?
>
> Yes, this will still work. You can even replace all the drives
> one-by-one with bigger ones, and it will still work and be bootable (and
> give you more space without *requiring* the system be rebooted).
>
>> If not, what's the minimum needed to support booting from another disk,
>> and using the ZFS filesystem for everything else?
>
> This situation is described in the Boot ZFS system from UFS article
> here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/UFSBoot
>
> I use this sort of setup for one system where the zpool has too many
> drives in it for the BIOS to cope with; works very well booting from a
> USB key.
>
> In fact, while the partitioning layout described in the
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS articles is great for holding the OS
> and making it bootable, for using ZFS to manage serious quantities of
> disk storage, other strategies might be better. It would probably be a
> good idea to have two zpools: one for the bulk of the space built from
> whole disks (ie. without using gpart or similar partitioning), in
> addition to your bootable zroot pool. Quite apart from wringing the
> maximum usable space out of your available disks, this also makes it
> much easier to replace failed disks or use hot spares.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 267 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/94f7cc99/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:08:39 +0000
> From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: booting a kernel directly from stage 1/2
> To: Alexander Best <arundel at freebsd.org>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D5FB2C7.7060200 at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 19/02/2011 02:47, Alexander Best wrote:
>> but that won't work. i get some numbers and then it says:
>> btx halted or something like that.
>
> Can't you boot into fixit mode from installation media? That should
> allow you to repair the boot blocks and make your system bootable again.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 267 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/bd69a12e/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:12:42 +0000
> From: Alexander Best <arundel at freebsd.org>
> Subject: Re: booting a kernel directly from stage 1/2
> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <20110219121242.GA55551 at freebsd.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sat Feb 19 11, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> On 19/02/2011 02:47, Alexander Best wrote:
>>> but that won't work. i get some numbers and then it says:
>>> btx halted or something like that.
>>
>> Can't you boot into fixit mode from installation media? That should
>> allow you to repair the boot blocks and make your system bootable again.
>
> sorry if i wasn't clear enough. my system works perfectly normal. all i want
> is to avoid running through the booting stage 3 (i.e. running /boot/loader),
> because i want to speed up the boot time.
>
> cheers.
> alex
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> --
>> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
>> Flat 3
>> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
>> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>>
>
>
>
> --
> a13x
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:18:00 -0500
> From: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>,
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <F2D539249AB2457E49ED2013 at mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> --As of February 19, 2011 12:01:37 PM +0000, Matthew Seaman is alleged to
> have said:
>
>>> Let's say I install a FreeBSD system using a ZFS-only filesystem into a
>>> box with hotswapable hard drives, configured with some redundancy. Time
>>> passes, one of the drives fails, and it is replaced and rebuilt using the
>>> ZFS tools. (Possibly on auto, or possibly by just doing a 'zpool
>>> replace'.)
>>>
>>> Is that box still bootable? (It's still running, but could it *boot*?)
>>
>> Why wouldn't it be? The configuration in the Wiki article sets aside a
>> small freebsd-boot partition on each drive, and the instructions tell
>> you to install boot blocks as part of that partitioning process. You
>> would have to repeat those steps when you install your replacement drive
>> before you added the new disk into your zpool.
>>
>> So long as the BIOS can read the bootcode from one or other drives, and
>> can then access /boot/zfs/zpool.cache to learn about what zpools you
>> have, then the system should boot.
>
> So, assuming a forgetful sysadmin (or someone who is new didn't know about
> the setup in the first place) is that a yes or a no for the one-drive
> replaced case?
>
> It definitely is a 'no' for the all-drives replaced case, as I suspected:
> You would need to have repeated the partitioning manually. (And not
> letting ZFS handle it.)
>
>>> If not, what's the minimum needed to support booting from another disk,
>>> and using the ZFS filesystem for everything else?
>>
>> This situation is described in the Boot ZFS system from UFS article
>> here: http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS/UFSBoot
>>
>> I use this sort of setup for one system where the zpool has too many
>> drives in it for the BIOS to cope with; works very well booting from a
>> USB key.
>
> Thanks; I wasn't sure if that procedure would work if the bootloader was on
> a different physical disk than the rest of the filesystem. Nice to hear
> from someone who's tried it that it works. ;)
>
>> In fact, while the partitioning layout described in the
>> http://wiki.freebsd.org/RootOnZFS articles is great for holding the OS
>> and making it bootable, for using ZFS to manage serious quantities of
>> disk storage, other strategies might be better. It would probably be a
>> good idea to have two zpools: one for the bulk of the space built from
>> whole disks (ie. without using gpart or similar partitioning), in
>> addition to your bootable zroot pool. Quite apart from wringing the
>> maximum usable space out of your available disks, this also makes it
>> much easier to replace failed disks or use hot spares.
>
> If a single disk failure in the zpool can render the machine unbootable,
> it's better yet to have a dedicated bootloader drive: It increases the mean
> time between failures of your boot device (and therefore your machine), and
> it reduces the 'gotcha' value. In a hot-swap environment booting directly
> off of ZFS you could fail a reboot a month (or more...) after the disk
> replacement, and finding your problem then will be a headache until someone
> remembers this setup tidbit.
>
> If the 'fail to boot' only happens once *all* the original drives have been
> replaced the mean time between failures is better in the ZFS situation, but
> the 'gotcha' value becomes absolutely huge: Since you can replace one (or
> two, or more) disks without issue, the problem will likely take years to
> develop.
>
> Ah well, price of the bleeding edge. ;)
>
> Daniel T. Staal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
> local copyright law.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:04:53 -0500
> From: David <cyber366 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <7E0B1096-3250-4B27-A541-61CA2E5F3F7B at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hello All:
>
> I am new to FreeBSD development (I've done some work on NetBSD, but mostly
> on Linux).
>
> I am developing a COTS-based network appliance. After doing my research, I've decided to
> use FreeBSD as my development platform. I would like to get my development environment
> to the point where I can build a single ISO image that will contain OS and application
> ready to install. After reading through the handbook, porter's guide, and googling, I think I have
> a rough idea of how to do this, but I still have some gaps in how I set this up.
>
> My current understanding is that all of the application specific, user land software should
> reside in the ports tree. I have two questions with respect to this:
>
> 1. If I don't want to publish my software, how do I manage the source (do I just generate a tarball
> on my build machine and place it in DISTDIR?).
>
> 2. How do I integrate a ports-based application with a "make release" so that I can have my
> application binaries and dependancies included on the ISO ready for installation?
>
> I'd greatly appreciate any pointers. I'm really looking forward to developing
> under FreeBSD, but just need a few pointers to get me started.
>
> Thanks!
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:44:38 +0000
> From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D5FD756.5020306 at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 19/02/2011 13:18, Daniel Staal wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't it be? The configuration in the Wiki article sets aside a
>>> small freebsd-boot partition on each drive, and the instructions tell
>>> you to install boot blocks as part of that partitioning process. You
>>> would have to repeat those steps when you install your replacement drive
>>> before you added the new disk into your zpool.
>>>
>>> So long as the BIOS can read the bootcode from one or other drives, and
>>> can then access /boot/zfs/zpool.cache to learn about what zpools you
>>> have, then the system should boot.
>>
>> So, assuming a forgetful sysadmin (or someone who is new didn't know
>> about the setup in the first place) is that a yes or a no for the
>> one-drive replaced case?
>
> Umm... a sufficiently forgetful sysadmin can break *anything*. This
> isn't really a fair test: forgetting to write the boot blocks onto a
> disk could similarly render a UFS based system unbootable. That's why
> scripting this sort of stuff is a really good idea. Any new sysadmin
> should of course be referred to the copious and accurate documentation
> detailing exactly the steps needed to replace a drive...
>
> ZFS is definitely advantageous in this respect, because the sysadmin has
> to do fewer steps to repair a failed drive, so there's less opportunity
> for anything to be missed out or got wrong.
>
> The best solution in this respect is one where you can simply unplug the
> dead drive and plug in the replacement. You can do that with many
> hardware RAID systems, but you're going to have to pay a premium price
> for them. Also, you loose out on the general day-to-day benefits of
> using ZFS.
>
>> It definitely is a 'no' for the all-drives replaced case, as I
>> suspected: You would need to have repeated the partitioning manually.
>> (And not letting ZFS handle it.)
>
> Oh, assuming your sysadmins consistently fail to replace the drives
> correctly, then depending on your BIOS you can be in deep do-do as far
> as rebooting goes rather sooner than that.
>
>> If a single disk failure in the zpool can render the machine
>> unbootable, it's better yet to have a dedicated bootloader drive
>
> If a single disk failure renders your system unbootable, then you're
> doing it wrong. ZFS-root systems should certainly reboot if zfs can
> still assemble the root pool -- so with one disk failed for RAIDZ1, or
> two for RAIDZ2 or up to half the drives for mirror.
>
> If this failure to correctly replace broken drives is going to be a
> significant problem in your environment, then I guess you're going to
> have to define appropriate processes. You might say that in the event
> of a hard drive being replaced, it is mandatory to book some planned
> downtime at the next convenient point, and do a test reboot + apply any
> remedial work needed. If your system design is such that you can't take
> any one machine down for maintenance, even with advance warning then
> you've got more important problems to solve before you worry about using
> ZFS or not.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 267 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/66a8256d/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:10:16 +0100
> From: Maciej Milewski <milu at dat.pl>
> Subject: Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Cc: Craig Butler <craig001 at lerwick.hopto.org>
> Message-ID: <201102191610.16919.milu at dat.pl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Saturday 19 of February 2011 06:12:52, Craig Butler wrote:
>> Lenovo destroyed thinkpad in the t410i range;
>> * stupid flimsy/flexi keyboard with massive delete and escape keys
>> (why ???)
> I don't liked it either so I stayed with R400.
>> * gobi 2000 3g connectivity, cant get it working on anything none M$
> Have you tried gobi_loader and
> http://old.nabble.com/-dev-ttyU0---block-at-open-td29876841.html
> ?
>
> As for the subject - my R400 is working fine and I have no problems with it.
> Opposite to when I had Lenovo 3000 series(poor performance,hot palm rest
> place, poor technical design: plastic cover too thin and too plastic. It made
> my lcd with background artefact of the 5cm circle in the centre of the screen)
> I think this line was transformed into the IdeaPad line
> Earlier I had Acer's Travelmate 3012 where it has issues with acpi and overall
> performance not to mention surprisingly hot keyboard.
>
> -
> Maciej
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 15:10:04 +0000
> From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D5FDD4C.5050503 at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 19/02/2011 14:04, David wrote:
>> I am new to FreeBSD development (I've done some work on NetBSD, but mostly
>> on Linux).
>>
>> I am developing a COTS-based network appliance. After doing my research, I've decided to
>> use FreeBSD as my development platform. I would like to get my development environment
>> to the point where I can build a single ISO image that will contain OS and application
>> ready to install. After reading through the handbook, porter's guide, and googling, I think I have
>> a rough idea of how to do this, but I still have some gaps in how I set this up.
>
> Cool. There's pretty good support for building custom install media in
> FreeBSD -- see release(7) for starters.
>
>> My current understanding is that all of the application specific, user land software should
>> reside in the ports tree. I have two questions with respect to this:
>
> They don't *have* to reside in the ports -- it's just that the
> advantages of using ports are such that you'ld need a really compelling
> reason not to.
>
> Also, "using the ports" and "using packages" come to pretty much the
> same thing in the end. Ports are just a structure for building packages
> -- and packages can be in two states: installed into your filesystem, or
> collected together as a pkg tarball.
>
>> 1. If I don't want to publish my software, how do I manage the source (do I just generate a tarball
>> on my build machine and place it in DISTDIR?).
>
> You can create private ports that you can manage yourself and that
> integrate with the regular ports tree pretty easily. In that case, you
> should be able to build pre-compiled packages for your software which
> you can include on your custom media. It's trickier if you need several
> custom ports with dependencies between them, but still doable.
>
> For a simple custom port, you can create a directory containing a port
> Makefile, pkg-descr, pkg-plist etc. etc. anywhere in your filesystem.
> Follow the Porter's Handbook for creating your port
> (http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/) --
> the structure you need is identical to what you'ld write for a port
> intended to be committed to the public ports tree.
>
>> 2. How do I integrate a ports-based application with a "make release" so that I can have my
>> application binaries and dependancies included on the ISO ready for installation?
>
> This is a standard feature when building install media using 'make
> release' -- you should even be able to set up a scripted sysinstall that
> will do practically everything automatically, including installing your
> custom packages. Or check out the new bsdinstall stuff going into
> current right about now.
>
>> I'd greatly appreciate any pointers. I'm really looking forward to developing
>> under FreeBSD, but just need a few pointers to get me started.
>
> You'll find that FreeBSD documentation is rather more comprehensive than
> is typical under Linux. Just about everything has a man page, and the
> Handbook and various other online publications are generally rated as
> excellent. Anything else, the FreeBSD mailing lists or forums can
> usually be relied upon to provide answers about. There are specialised
> lists for most interesting topics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 267 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/b5bd5a51/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:04:19 +0100
> From: Harald Servat <redcrash at gmail.com>
> Subject: 8.2-PRERELEASE?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=Cdg86o9X9w1BZSYR-foPwdM2H3RH2X2v2Tunq at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hello list,
>
> yesterday (Feb, 17th) I performed a cvsup (using csup, infact) of my
> /usr/src tree using
> *default release=cvs tag=RELENG_8
> in my csup file (based on the csup
> file /usr/share/examples/cvsup/stable-supfile).
>
> According to [1], RELENG_8_2 and RELENG_8_2_0_RELEASE were created before,
> however, running uname ony machine after building world reports "FreeBSD
> 8.2-PRERELEASE". I expect it not to show 8.2-PRERELEASE but something newer
> (maybe 8.3-PRERELEASE?) Is uname reporting that I'm stick in some old bits?
> If so, how can I move to the newer 8.x bits? If not, when does the version
> change?
>
> Thank you!
>
> [1] http://wiki.freebsd.org/Releng/8.2TODO
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Fry: You can see how I lived before I met you.
> Bender: You lived before you met me?!
> Fry: Yeah, lots of people did.
> Bender: Really?!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:35:35 -0500
> From: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>,
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <AF8BFB811828E5E7EFD857A5 at mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> --As of February 19, 2011 2:44:38 PM +0000, Matthew Seaman is alleged to
> have said:
>
>> Umm... a sufficiently forgetful sysadmin can break *anything*. This
>> isn't really a fair test: forgetting to write the boot blocks onto a
>> disk could similarly render a UFS based system unbootable. That's why
>> scripting this sort of stuff is a really good idea. Any new sysadmin
>> should of course be referred to the copious and accurate documentation
>> detailing exactly the steps needed to replace a drive...
>>
>> ZFS is definitely advantageous in this respect, because the sysadmin has
>> to do fewer steps to repair a failed drive, so there's less opportunity
>> for anything to be missed out or got wrong.
>>
>> The best solution in this respect is one where you can simply unplug the
>> dead drive and plug in the replacement. You can do that with many
>> hardware RAID systems, but you're going to have to pay a premium price
>> for them. Also, you loose out on the general day-to-day benefits of
>> using ZFS.
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> True, best case is hardware RAID for this specific problem. What I'm
> looking at here is basically reducing the surprise: A ZFS pool being used
> as the boot drive has the 'surprising' behavior that if you replace a drive
> using the instructions from the man pages or a naive Google search, you
> will have a drive that *appears* to work, until some point later where you
> attempt to reboot your system. (At which point you will need to start
> over.) To avoid this you need to read local documentation and/or remember
> that there is something beyond the man pages needs to be done.
>
> With a normal UFS/etc. filesystem the standard failure recovery systems
> will point out that this is a boot drive, and handle as necessary. It will
> either work or not, it will never *appear* to work, and then fail at some
> future point from a current error. It might be more steps to repair a
> specific drive, but all the steps are handled together.
>
> Basically, if a ZFS boot drive fails, you are likely to get the following
> scenario:
> 1) 'What do I need to do to replace a disk in the ZFS pool?'
> 2) 'Oh, that's easy.' Replaces disk.
> 3) System fails to boot at some later point.
> 4) 'Oh, right, you need to do this *as well* on the *boot* pool...'
>
> Where if a UFS boot drive fails on an otherwise ZFS system, you'll get:
> 1) 'What's this drive?'
> 2) 'Oh, so how do I set that up again?'
> 3) Set up replacement boot drive.
>
> The first situation hides that it's a special case, where the second one
> doesn't.
>
> To avoid the first scenario you need to make sure your sysadmins are
> following *local* (and probably out-of-band) docs, and aware of potential
> problems. And awake. ;) The scenario in the second situation presents
> it's problem as a unified package, and you can rely on normal levels of
> alertness to be able to handle it correctly. (The sysadmin will realize it
> needs to be set up as a boot device because it's the boot device. ;) It
> may be complicated, but it's *obviously* complicated.)
>
> I'm still not clear on whether a ZFS-only system will boot with a failed
> drive in the root ZFS pool. Once booted, of course a decent ZFS setup
> should be able to recover from the failed drive. But the question is if
> the FreeBSD boot process will handle the redundancy or not. At this point
> I'm actually guessing it will, which of course only exasperates the above
> surprise problem: 'The easy ZFS disk replacement procedure *did* work in
> the past, why did it cause a problem now?' (And conceivably it could cause
> *major* data problems at that point, as ZFS will *grow* a pool quite
> easily, but *shrinking* one is a problem.)
>
> Daniel T. Staal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
> local copyright law.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:35:51 -0500
> From: David <cyber366 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD
> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <3DA6F44D-FABF-4E2A-9E32-B3D617C36B61 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>
>> On 19/02/2011 14:04, David wrote:
>>> [Snip]
>>> I'd greatly appreciate any pointers. I'm really looking forward to developing
>>> under FreeBSD, but just need a few pointers to get me started.
>>
>> You'll find that FreeBSD documentation is rather more comprehensive than
>> is typical under Linux. Just about everything has a man page, and the
>> Handbook and various other online publications are generally rated as
>> excellent. Anything else, the FreeBSD mailing lists or forums can
>> usually be relied upon to provide answers about. There are specialised
>> lists for most interesting topics.
>
> Thank you for the pointers Matt, that is very helpful. I am already enjoying
> working with FreeBSD and looking forward to learning more about it as I progress.
>
> Cheers,
>
> David.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 09:59:28 -0500
> From: David Lapsley <dl99 at me.com>
> Subject: Re: Developing Embedded Network Device on FreeBSD
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <296734BA-B2D9-4987-A1F1-BE7CE7540C03 at me.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> After a little more research ...
>
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 9:04 AM, David wrote:
>
>> Hello All:
>>
>> I am new to FreeBSD development (I've done some work on NetBSD, but mostly
>> on Linux).
>>
>> I am developing a COTS-based network appliance. After doing my research, I've decided to
>> use FreeBSD as my development platform. I would like to get my development environment
>> to the point where I can build a single ISO image that will contain OS and application
>> ready to install. After reading through the handbook, porter's guide, and googling, I think I have
>> a rough idea of how to do this, but I still have some gaps in how I set this up.
>>
>> My current understanding is that all of the application specific, user land software should
>> reside in the ports tree. I have two questions with respect to this:
>>
>> 1. If I don't want to publish my software, how do I manage the source (do I just generate a tarball
>> on my build machine and place it in DISTDIR?).
>
> After reading Chapter 11 of "Absolute FreeBSD, 2nd Edition" (very helpful!), it seems like
> "make package" is my friend in this case. I've created a "packages" directory in /usr/ports
> so that my software and dependancies will be packaged and placed in this directory.
>
>> From there, it seems like it should be fairly straightforward to have these incorporated
> into the ISO build. Then I can do OS install from the ISO build, followed by a pkg_add
> (with appropriate environment variables set) to install the binary packages.
>
> This seems workable. I'm not sure if it is the Right way to do it. I'd appreciate any
> thoughts/comments on this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:29:41 +0000
> From: krad <kraduk at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=JXiX6bODv9S2Wnp_4DxQu6FB7RN8JWXFtcwdP at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 19 February 2011 15:35, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
>> --As of February 19, 2011 2:44:38 PM +0000, Matthew Seaman is alleged to
>> have said:
>>
>>> Umm... a sufficiently forgetful sysadmin can break *anything*. This
>>> isn't really a fair test: forgetting to write the boot blocks onto a
>>> disk could similarly render a UFS based system unbootable. That's why
>>> scripting this sort of stuff is a really good idea. Any new sysadmin
>>> should of course be referred to the copious and accurate documentation
>>> detailing exactly the steps needed to replace a drive...
>>>
>>> ZFS is definitely advantageous in this respect, because the sysadmin has
>>> to do fewer steps to repair a failed drive, so there's less opportunity
>>> for anything to be missed out or got wrong.
>>>
>>> The best solution in this respect is one where you can simply unplug the
>>> dead drive and plug in the replacement. You can do that with many
>>> hardware RAID systems, but you're going to have to pay a premium price
>>> for them. Also, you loose out on the general day-to-day benefits of
>>> using ZFS.
>>
>> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>>
>> True, best case is hardware RAID for this specific problem. What I'm
>> looking at here is basically reducing the surprise: A ZFS pool being used as
>> the boot drive has the 'surprising' behavior that if you replace a drive
>> using the instructions from the man pages or a naive Google search, you will
>> have a drive that *appears* to work, until some point later where you
>> attempt to reboot your system. (At which point you will need to start
>> over.) To avoid this you need to read local documentation and/or remember
>> that there is something beyond the man pages needs to be done.
>>
>> With a normal UFS/etc. filesystem the standard failure recovery systems will
>> point out that this is a boot drive, and handle as necessary. It will
>> either work or not, it will never *appear* to work, and then fail at some
>> future point from a current error. It might be more steps to repair a
>> specific drive, but all the steps are handled together.
>>
>> Basically, if a ZFS boot drive fails, you are likely to get the following
>> scenario:
>> 1) 'What do I need to do to replace a disk in the ZFS pool?'
>> 2) 'Oh, that's easy.' Replaces disk.
>> 3) System fails to boot at some later point.
>> 4) 'Oh, right, you need to do this *as well* on the *boot* pool...'
>>
>> Where if a UFS boot drive fails on an otherwise ZFS system, you'll get:
>> 1) 'What's this drive?'
>> 2) 'Oh, so how do I set that up again?'
>> 3) Set up replacement boot drive.
>>
>> The first situation hides that it's a special case, where the second one
>> doesn't.
>>
>> To avoid the first scenario you need to make sure your sysadmins are
>> following *local* (and probably out-of-band) docs, and aware of potential
>> problems. And awake. ;) The scenario in the second situation presents
>> it's problem as a unified package, and you can rely on normal levels of
>> alertness to be able to handle it correctly. (The sysadmin will realize it
>> needs to be set up as a boot device because it's the boot device. ;) It
>> may be complicated, but it's *obviously* complicated.)
>>
>> I'm still not clear on whether a ZFS-only system will boot with a failed
>> drive in the root ZFS pool. Once booted, of course a decent ZFS setup
>> should be able to recover from the failed drive. But the question is if the
>> FreeBSD boot process will handle the redundancy or not. At this point I'm
>> actually guessing it will, which of course only exasperates the above
>> surprise problem: 'The easy ZFS disk replacement procedure *did* work in the
>> past, why did it cause a problem now?' (And conceivably it could cause
>> *major* data problems at that point, as ZFS will *grow* a pool quite easily,
>> but *shrinking* one is a problem.)
>>
>> Daniel T. Staal
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
>> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
>> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
>> expire 5 year s after the author's death, or in 30 years,
>> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
>> local copyright law.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
> on slightly different note, make sure you align your partitions so the
> zfs partitions 1st sector is divisible by 8, eg 1st sector 2048. Also
> when you create the zpool, use the gnop -s 4096 trick to make sure the
> pool has ashift=12. You may not be using advanced format drives yet,
> but when you do in the future you will be glad you started out like
> this.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:11:59 -0500
> From: Andy Tornquist <andyt at afua.net>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>, freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinc8HrD_qZe=dw+3WDwb8Nqug=E+K2Ypx75EJ+V at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> P0r c qpppqppqpqapprfpprkkqroikiujpou
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Q
>
> R
>
> F
>
>
> Rf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/18/11, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> I've been reading over the ZFS-only-boot instructions linked here:
>> <http://wiki.freebsd.org/ZFS> (and further linked from there) and have one
>> worry:
>>
>> Let's say I install a FreeBSD system using a ZFS-only filesystem into a
>> box with hotswapable hard drives, configured with some redundancy. Time
>> passes, one of the drives fails, and it is replaced and rebuilt using the
>> ZFS tools. (Possibly on auto, or possibly by just doing a 'zpool
>> replace'.)
>>
>> Is that box still bootable? (It's still running, but could it *boot*?)
>>
>> Extend further: If *all* the original drives are replaced (not at the same
>> time, obviously) and rebuilt/resilvered using the ZFS utilities, is the
>> box still bootable?
>>
>> If not, what's the minimum needed to support booting from another disk,
>> and using the ZFS filesystem for everything else?
>>
>> Daniel T. Staal
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
>> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
>> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
>> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
>> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
>> local copyright law.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:06:46 +0100
> From: "Christopher J. Ruwe" <cjr at cruwe.de>
> Subject: Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <20110219200646.6a372e42 at dijkstra>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I am typing on a Lenovo Thinkpad R500 running 8-stable, after (a very
> high quality) instruction installation by Yamagi Burmeister
> (http://www.bsdforen.de/showthread.php?s=e2db5256b283497ca371738ad34b7572&t=24823).
>
> I am very happy with both FreeBSD and my notebook since I switched
> (unnerved) from Gentoo Linux to FreeBSD last year.
> --
> Christopher J. Ruwe
> TZ GMT + 1
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 834 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/3bb642cd/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:12:20 -0600 (CST)
> From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <201102192012.p1JKCKnP038248 at mail.r-bonomi.com>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 10:35:35 -0500
>> From: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
>> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
>>
> [[.. sneck ..]]
>>
>> Basically, if a ZFS boot drive fails, you are likely to get the following
>> scenario:
>> 1) 'What do I need to do to replace a disk in the ZFS pool?'
>> 2) 'Oh, that's easy.' Replaces disk.
>> 3) System fails to boot at some later point.
>> 4) 'Oh, right, you need to do this *as well* on the *boot* pool...'
>>
>> Where if a UFS boot drive fails on an otherwise ZFS system, you'll get:
>> 1) 'What's this drive?'
>> 2) 'Oh, so how do I set that up again?'
>> 3) Set up replacement boot drive.
>>
>> The first situation hides that it's a special case, where the second one
>> doesn't.
>
> "For any foolproof system, there exists a _sufficiently-determined_ fool
> capable of breaking it" applies.
>
>> To avoid the first scenario you need to make sure your sysadmins are
>> following *local* (and probably out-of-band) docs, and aware of potential
>> problems. And awake. ;) The scenario in the second situation presents
>> it's problem as a unified package, and you can rely on normal levels of
>> alertness to be able to handle it correctly. (The sysadmin will realize
>> it needs to be set up as a boot device because it's the boot device. ;)
>> It may be complicated, but it's *obviously* complicated.)
>>
>> I'm still not clear on whether a ZFS-only system will boot with a failed
>> drive in the root ZFS pool. Once booted, of course a decent ZFS setup
>> should be able to recover from the failed drive. But the question is if
>> the FreeBSD boot process will handle the redundancy or not. At this
>> point I'm actually guessing it will, which of course only exasperates the
>> above surprise problem: 'The easy ZFS disk replacement procedure *did*
>> work in the past, why did it cause a problem now?' (And conceivably it
>> could cause *major* data problems at that point, as ZFS will *grow* a
>> pool quite easily, but *shrinking* one is a problem.)
>
> A non-ZFS boot drive results in immediate, _guaranteed_, down-time for
> replacement if/when it fails.
>
> A ZFS boot drive lets you replace the drive and *schedule* the down-time
> (for a 'test' re-boot, to make *sure* everything works) at a convenient
> time.
>
> Failure to schedule the required down time is a management failure, not
> a methodology issue. One has located the requisite "sufficiently-
> determined" fool, and the results thereof are to be expected.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:57:02 -0800
> From: David Brodbeck <gull at gull.us>
> Subject: Re: Best Laptop to buy for Freebsd Without OS?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikN-s16r5MxbcucGqBd7zS9pytWQFS1bx8DbCiB at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Julian H. Stacey <jhs at berklix.com> wrote:
>> Reality:
>> XP purchased with a Toshiba laptop runs native, but fails on
>> virtualbox, on the same laptop. I believe XP is crippled to only
>> run on Toshiba, & vbox presents too clean/generic an environment ;-)
>
> Sometimes there can be activation issues with OEM versions of Windows
> XP. They're usually keyed to the manufacturer's BIOS.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:33:26 +0100
> From: Andy Wodfer <wodfer at gmail.com>
> Subject: How to forward old root mails to an external email address?
> To: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=KzYd+HpozAGqoTL7a7w0Smvn3=QENbmjzZTeo at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi all!
>
> I'm running FreeBSD 8.0 Release on this particular server and I have a
> rather large root mailbox under /var/mail/root.
>
> I have set up an alias under /etc/aliases for new emails, but I need to
> forward all the old emails in this mailbox to an external email address.
>
> How can I do that?
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Andreas
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:24:43 -0500
> From: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Subject: Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address?
> To: Andy Wodfer <wodfer at gmail.com>, freebsd-questions
> <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> Message-ID: <1837CB358903EB8C60F348FA at mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> --As of February 19, 2011 9:33:26 PM +0100, Andy Wodfer is alleged to have
> said:
>
>> 'm running FreeBSD 8.0 Release on this particular server and I have a
>> rather large root mailbox under /var/mail/root.
>>
>> I have set up an alias under /etc/aliases for new emails, but I need to
>> forward all the old emails in this mailbox to an external email address.
>>
>> How can I do that?
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> Easiest way I know of is to set up a procmail rule to forward everything to
> the external address, then feed the old mailbox to procmail via formail.
>
> ===== .procmailrc:
> :0
> ! new at example.com
>
> ==== Command line:
> cat /var/mail/root | formail -s procmail
>
> Daniel T. Staal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
> local copyright law.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:27:36 +0000
> From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D6035C8.9040700 at infracaninophile.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On 19/02/2011 15:35, Daniel Staal wrote:
>> I'm still not clear on whether a ZFS-only system will boot with a failed
>> drive in the root ZFS pool.
>
> If it's a mirror, raidz or similar pool type with resilience, then yes,
> it certainly will boot with a failed drive. Been there, done that.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
> Flat 3
> PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
> JID: matthew at infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 267 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110219/8a4da1cd/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:37:14 -0500
> From: Alfredo Perez <alfredoj69 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: BSD Magazine PDFs
> To: Xn Nooby <xnooby at gmail.com>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=KbhB17zx3Uv7J_TX9W_yF+GCMDexmT6S=612r at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I am missing them all, can you upload them somewhere?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Xn Nooby <xnooby at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the replies, good to know I'm not missing any issues.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Charlie Kester <corky1951 at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 08:13:19 PST MFV wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I've been downloading BSD Mag since it first came out and your list is
>>>> identical to mine.
>>>
>>> Same here.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:39:59 +0100
> From: Andy Wodfer <wodfer at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address?
> To: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimLMMpwk_jh18rPmh9TLw7aB7=XspNnU8T1P1Ps at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
>
>> --As of February 19, 2011 9:33:26 PM +0100, Andy Wodfer is alleged to have
>> said:
>>
>> 'm running FreeBSD 8.0 Release on this particular server and I have a
>>> rather large root mailbox under /var/mail/root.
>>>
>>> I have set up an alias under /etc/aliases for new emails, but I need to
>>> forward all the old emails in this mailbox to an external email address.
>>>
>>> How can I do that?
>>>
>>
>> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>>
>> Easiest way I know of is to set up a procmail rule to forward everything to
>> the external address, then feed the old mailbox to procmail via formail.
>>
>> ===== .procmailrc:
>> :0
>> ! new at example.com
>>
>> ==== Command line:
>> cat /var/mail/root | formail -s procmail
>>
>
> Hi Daniel and thanks for your reply!
>
> I already tried something similare, but I keep getting command not found for
> formail. I was hoping there was a way of doing this without installing
> additional software - just use what comes with a default FreeBSD
> installation.
>
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:50:22 -0500
> From: Mike Jeays <mike.jeays at rogers.com>
> Subject: Re: BSD Magazine PDFs
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <20110219165022.180026b5 at napoleon>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:37:14 -0500
> Alfredo Perez <alfredoj69 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am missing them all, can you upload them somewhere?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Xn Nooby <xnooby at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the replies, good to know I'm not missing any issues.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Charlie Kester <corky1951 at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri 18 Feb 2011 at 08:13:19 PST MFV wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been downloading BSD Mag since it first came out and your list is
>>>>> identical to mine.
>>>>
>>>> Same here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
> They are all online at bsdmag.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:52:43 -0500
> From: Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>,
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <B365A66AECD410EA3539D5FB at mac-pro.magehandbook.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> --As of February 19, 2011 2:12:20 PM -0600, Robert Bonomi is alleged to
> have said:
>
>> A non-ZFS boot drive results in immediate, _guaranteed_, down-time for
>> replacement if/when it fails.
>>
>> A ZFS boot drive lets you replace the drive and *schedule* the down-time
>> (for a 'test' re-boot, to make *sure* everything works) at a convenient
>> time.
>
> --As for the rest, it is mine.
>
> No it doesn't. It only extends the next scheduled downtime until you deal
> with it. ;) (Or, in a hot-swap environment with sufficient monitoring,
> means you need to deal with it before the next scheduled downtime.)
>
> Or, from what it sounds like, you could have a redundant/backup boot disk.
> I'm planning on using a $5 USB drive as my boot disk. Triple redundancy
> would cost $15. I paid more for lunch today. (Hmm. I'll have to test to
> see if that setup works, although given the rest of this discussion I don't
> see why it shouldn't...)
>
> I see the advantage, and that it offers higher levels of resiliency and if
> properly handled should cause no problems. I just hate relying on humans
> to remember things and follow directions. That's what computers are for.
> Repairing a failed disk in a ZFS boot pool requires a human to remember to
> look for directions in an unusual place, and then follow them correctly.
> If they don't, nothing happens immediately, but there is the possibility of
> failure at some later unspecified time. (Meanwhile if they look for
> directions in the *usual* place, they get a simple and straightforward set
> of instructions that will appear to work.)
>
> *If* that failure occurs, that downtime will be longer than the downtime
> you would save from a dozen boxes being handled using the correct ZFS
> procedure, as everyone tears their hair out going 'Why doesn't it work?!?
> It worked just fine a moment ago!' until someone remembers this quirk.
>
> I don't like quirky computers. That's why I'm not a Windows admin. ;)
>
> Daniel T. Staal
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> This email copyright the author. Unless otherwise noted, you
> are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
> the contents for non-commercial purposes. This copyright will
> expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
> whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
> local copyright law.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 25
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:00:10 -0800
> From: David Brodbeck <gull at gull.us>
> Subject: Re: ZFS-only booting on FreeBSD
> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=ZyBaPqbxSahP=-BJvMi97YwJrtCj7V3FPapN9 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Daniel Staal <DStaal at usa.net> wrote:
>> I see the advantage, and that it offers higher levels of resiliency and if
>> properly handled should cause no problems. I just hate relying on humans to
>> remember things and follow directions. That's what computers are for.
>> Repairing a failed disk in a ZFS boot pool requires a human to remember to
>> look for directions in an unusual place, and then follow them correctly.
>
> That's why I generally prefer to boot off hardware RAID 1 in
> situations where reliability is critical. There are too many fiddly
> unknown factors in booting off software RAID. Even if you do
> everything else right, the BIOS may refuse to look beyond the failed
> drive and boot off the good one. I save the software RAID for data
> spindles (which I tend to keep separate from the boot/OS spindles,
> anyway.)
>
> 2-port 3ware cards are relatively inexpensive, and well supported by
> every OS I've used except Solaris. If you're going for RAID 1 you
> don't need expensive battery-backed cache.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 26
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 14:12:02 -0800
> From: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com>
> Subject: Can motorola v195 be supported as network interface?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <4D604032.1070206 at rawbw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I have this phone, 'usbconfig -d ugen1.2 dump_device_desc' shows it like
> this:
>
> ugen1.2: <Motorola Phone (V195) Motorola Inc.> at usbus1, cfg=0 md=HOST
> spd=FULL (12Mbps) pwr=ON
>
> bLength = 0x0012
> bDescriptorType = 0x0001
> bcdUSB = 0x0110
> bDeviceClass = 0x0002
> bDeviceSubClass = 0x0000
> bDeviceProtocol = 0x0000
> bMaxPacketSize0 = 0x0008
> idVendor = 0x22b8
> idProduct = 0x4902
> bcdDevice = 0x0001
> iManufacturer = 0x0001 <Motorola Inc.>
> iProduct = 0x0002 <Motorola Phone (V195)>
> iSerialNumber = 0x0000 <no string>
> bNumConfigurations = 0x0002
>
> It doesn't show up as a network interface, only as ugen.
> What would it take to support it? How hard can it be to make it show up
> as network interface?
> MacOS for example sees it as a PPP modem asking for user name/password.
>
> Yuri
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 27
> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:14:42 +0000
> From: RW <rwmaillists at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: How to forward old root mails to an external email
> address?
> To: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Message-ID: <20110219221442.39aacc81 at gumby.homeunix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011 22:39:59 +0100
> Andy Wodfer <wodfer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I already tried something similare, but I keep getting command not
>> found for formail. I was hoping there was a way of doing this without
>> installing additional software - just use what comes with a default
>> FreeBSD installation.
>
> formail is installed as part of the procmail package. Check for typos
> and that PATH is set correctly.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>
> End of freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 350, Issue 10
> **************************************************
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list