From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 20 00:36:53 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83E5106564A; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:36:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com) Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com [64.81.247.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDC38FC16; Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:36:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2K00pue003373; Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:00:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com) Message-Id: <201103200000.p2K00pue003373@chez.mckusick.com> To: Nathan Whitehorn In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:50:08 CDT." <4D840BD0.4030306@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:00:51 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_MID, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=failed version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chez.mckusick.com Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Jeff Roberson , Gavin Atkinson , svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r219667 - head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall/partedit X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 00:36:53 -0000 > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:50:08 -0500 > From: Nathan Whitehorn > Subject: Re: svn commit: r219667 - head/usr.sbin/bsdinstall/partedit > To: Gavin Atkinson > Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, > svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org > > On 03/15/11 12:50, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 12:26 -0500, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > Hrm, I hadn't realised this was the case. If this change is intentional > > and planned to remain, I guess the various bits of documentation that > > say "several partitions good, one bad" should be updated... > > It is intended. I think it makes things somewhat easier for the > virtualization case, and I know a lot of people have been running their > systems with "one-big-/" for years. If it is harmful for some reason, > however, it's easy to change. > > >>> I wonder if it is time to start enabling SU+J on non-root filesystems > >>> now? > >> That's certainly something to think about, although I'll defer whether > >> that is wise to others. It's a little bit of a pain on the > >> implementation side, since you can't turn it on from newfs, but that > >> isn't a serious obstacle. > > As of r218726, you can now set this from newfs. (-j) > > Ah, wonderful. The decision of whether that is a good idea still rests > with others, however :) > -nathan I believe that we should enable SU+J by default. We should do it now so that we can get wider experience with it before 9.0 is released (thus letting us revert to SU if uncorrectable problems arise). The requirement that the root run without SU derived from the fact that you could get out of space errors if you tried to replace files too quickly (e.g., during installworld). That problem was fixed about 2004. So there is no reason that root cannot have SU enabled. In particular, if you are going to default to a single filesystem, then root should definitely have SU (or SU+J per above) enabled. Kirk McKusick