A possibly odd upgrade question

Chris Brennan xaero at xaerolimit.net
Fri May 20 14:26:22 UTC 2011

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2011 21:58:13 -0400, Chris Brennan <xaero at xaerolimit.net>
> wrote:
> > One last question ... hopefully lol. am I going to run into any issues w/
> > the default fbsd6 layout?
> >
> > [root at Ziggy [~]# df -h
> > Filesystem     Size    Used   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
> > /dev/ad0s1a    496M    328M    128M    72%    /
> Maybe not so good (as a default) as soon as you're going
> to compile kernels for 8.x, where a / size of 1G would
> be better (although you can even get a FreeBSD / partition
> fully functional in < 500 MB).
> The rest of the df output looks normal.
> > What I think I failed to previously mention is that this machine started
> out
> > with fbsd6.x, was upgraded many times from 6x though 7.1 where it fell
> into
> > disuse. With my recent repurpose of this box ... I'm concerned that it
> might
> > be a moot point if base won't fit on rot root slice.
> In this case, you should switch off all debugging for the
> kernel, and maybe even omit the backup kernel.OLD mechanism.
> But attention! This can be dangerous! Still you have the
> option to boot from a live system (Fixit should be enough)
> to manually make a backup copy of the running kernel, and
> in case anything fails at boot stage, use the live sytem
> to re-"install" the old kernel. But in fact, this should
> not be required.

OK, I am off now to research how to build the kernel w/o debugging symbols
... then I shall embark on this.

> A: Yes.
> >Q: Are you sure?
> >>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.

> >>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list