From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 10:15:01 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9EC7D5 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:15:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dnaeon@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bk0-f51.google.com (mail-bk0-f51.google.com [209.85.214.51]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB2C8FC12 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-bk0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ik5so5195941bkc.10 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:14:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=eP0YbxliLF41W15rVt0LCB4EFRHuKneOhcjXvZVTiJo=; b=oFnX1oGS8Z8Sb5zUS7/WTcQIXTmeZ8PY3NvohxdK3QCEInmh0DvXUwbNbzd4NItIfm OrWryM85fEOHgc+JZTRey13GOlH3MgKt/kBbxUYaDaRPp8UgDUQ+JOvY0JenvqRrSeD6 QZ8ZWHbTZ8k/R/btxMmR4xRskwOI9sk1JUEvaFC9dp0RYNdmUUKBuMlHURLPMLLhKthm ivV0dU/pUQfUWnyzhBGka3cDpfKSend7vqudoZkDKxcFRHYQhIxhZjt7YUmmA30EsroO mMsxsltPSNU1mEJjvajk5533EYGnUwbUbZgqb7BbyWcg+hiDNqAYuPtyy5EwDE+L6K1X reqw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.147.147 with SMTP id l19mr17793412bkv.91.1356862493609; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:14:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.63.196 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 02:14:53 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:14:53 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Displaying jail's info only by using jail_get() From: Marin Atanasov Nikolov To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:15:01 -0000 Hello, I'd like to display info about the currently running jails on my system by using jail_get(). The code of the program can be found here: * https://gist.github.com/4411851 Everything works, except for cases when a jail has multiple IP addresses assigned to it. In that case the JID is never returned by jail_get(), thus I cannot get any info about it. Know what I'm missing here? Thanks and regards, Marin -- Marin Atanasov Nikolov dnaeon AT gmail DOT com http://www.unix-heaven.org/ From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 11:38:36 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEDC221D; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:38:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38D4B8FC12; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:38:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUBcYIR042292 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:38:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:38:34 +0100 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: developers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD git mirrors demoted to beta status, need your help Message-ID: <20121230113834.GG69724@acme.spoerlein.net> Mail-Followup-To: developers@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, hackers@FreeBSD.org References: <20121215132246.GH69724@acme.spoerlein.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121215132246.GH69724@acme.spoerlein.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: current@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:38:36 -0000 --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just a reminder that this re-roll will happen in almost two weeks. Thanks to a couple of volunteers, I now have independent confirmation that the process is deterministic and repeatable and the switch can progress as planned. Regards, Uli On Sat, 2012-12-15 at 14:22:46 +0100, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrote: > Bad news everyone, >=20 > tl;dr The git mirror of the source repository needs to be re-rolled to > make the conversion deterministically repeatable, this will change > pretty much all git commit hashes. >=20 > The re-roll will be done January 15, 2013. >=20 > Not affected are the ports and doc repositories, nor is the svn_head > (for use with git-svn) affected. >=20 >=20 > Background >=20 > The converter (svn2git) was handing commits and objects to git's > fast-import in arbitrary order, this makes merge commits have an > arbitrary order of their parent commits and thus these merge commits > have changing commit hashes for each converter run. >=20 > This has been fixed, but requires us to move all the branches over to > this deterministic scheme, which will change all their commit hashes. > None of the contents of these commits change, so rebasing/remerging your > work into these branches is possible without running into any merge > conflicts. >=20 >=20 > We need your help >=20 > A goal of these conversions is to have them repeatable by you (yes, > you!), so the correctness of the conversion can be verified. There are > also no backups of the conversion runs, as they should be repeatable > anyway. >=20 > We need 2-3 volunteers to run these conversions themselves and verify > that the produced commit hashes match the published ones. The necessary > steps to do this are documented on the Wiki under >=20 > http://wiki.freebsd.org/GitWorkflow#History >=20 > Please send me your output of git show-ref in a private mail, thanks. >=20 > Cheers, > Uli >=20 > PS: This re-roll has nothing to do with the recent security incident. --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ4Ce6AAoJEKOmmGRKr4LO78cH/RgCV96g7UAsI++NN6yKEHIA iinKYlwTiMOY981NJ79mc12YU5mffbdE8anjDK5K+MbOAqeoUl+AoG8KbafDqUEk yLL+nU3D2/iH/+FrenrGteJCOP+89NGfjuxTMi0yecoAnhQFOUt9t2PZOfvsTGFB VEG+ZynGD4b00odW7jwv8YBNbhWxI661ZIzU8GR9aUzVg4Iyk5ac7tWwXvgRQNTI TbtwHp+bh5MbTKXOsIAApcXy2liI1u1l94dxOkaSzEazeM7EBM/6d6NvLXk9PEMY uxzhc6E7z58+EY4VvzkBDTwr1jct1VISXjWIJqvohEHwN+Pf7b2SBSNAAY9F/cY= =yB0O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3MMMIZFJzhAsRj/+-- From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 12:58:03 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F4F9323 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:58:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C975C8FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUCvwY0002982; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:57:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUCvwM0002979; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:57:58 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:57:58 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: "Jack L." Subject: Re: cvs deprecated In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:57:58 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:58:03 -0000 do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as today? will portsnap be continued or is too deprecated? From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 13:18:44 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A472B6CA for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-f180.google.com (mail-ie0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FB6F8FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c10so14120094ieb.25 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:18:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=NPiTZe6vzLJ9qRVTsL67DBJqRRkPH7A9OdXgc/1btuM=; b=Ylx/c9V9DV1wiF2UFMmmqlTQiJ/E3SVGzy+4WjGkDVFUJQyoXFqDP/hnNywgiFAVau MlhBpxAD0rzmcQ1kp/E8Ro2gmeTUPwmjnE4qa70YIJntU3o2ObqyDib8DoJiu4wpDrG/ pzmDUCgJXZSXa7JyiKatLklOCJHn3HZ6eyODdTQDR1kQBBZjQTuXSWliKXD1Vsm8veCV ftAEymbb9amTzFG7VfV5n54/ztk+yl7HKAzYB0C8RG5VK4Nl8WUdtkCo7C6+H2O3S1zo 2PDv4BasscvjluY1lcoLANbHN8s3AnovoTu0VNAhsrJr+EioXAD0Y29KIRGtWxK7ZN/6 vhqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.152.137 with SMTP id uy9mr33001233igb.62.1356873518412; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:18:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.65.132 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:18:37 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.65.132 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:18:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:37 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: cvs deprecated From: Chris Rees To: Wojciech Puchar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Jack L." X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:44 -0000 On 30 Dec 2012 12:58, "Wojciech Puchar" wrote: > > do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as today? will portsnap be continued or is too deprecated? Portsnap is staying. Chris From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 13:21:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AEDB88F for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:21:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32498FC08 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:21:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUDLQBg003199 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUDLQaH003196 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 (CET) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:21:29 -0000 OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes. basic operation seems the same. Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes, but how about performance? From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 15:38:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72991C96 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:38:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from develloper.unix@hotmail.fr) Received: from bay0-omc3-s3.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s3.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.190.141]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5071F8FC15 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:38:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BAY002-W211 ([65.54.190.188]) by bay0-omc3-s3.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:37:42 -0800 X-EIP: [LhZjUm6ZGBTQUxj9Qwmp4K599y6epUZ5] X-Originating-Email: [develloper.unix@hotmail.fr] Message-ID: From: Quentin SCHWERKOLT To: Wojciech Puchar , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" Subject: RE: UFS1 vs UFS2 Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:37:41 +0100 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2012 15:37:42.0321 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B4D6210:01CDE6A3] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:38:47 -0000 Since FreeBSD 9.0=2C you can choose between UFS1 and UFS2 in bsdinstall(8) = when creating a new freebsd-ufs partition. Q. Schwerkolt > Date: Sun=2C 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 > From: wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl > To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: UFS1 vs UFS2 >=20 > OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. >=20 > FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes.= =20 > basic operation seems the same. >=20 > Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would=20 > have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes=2C but how= =20 > about performance? >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe=2C send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.o= rg" = From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 16:07:07 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC242FE7 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:07:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f47.google.com (mail-ee0-f47.google.com [74.125.83.47]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A118FC13 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e51so5751399eek.6 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:06:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tfVJlk16GlfQwwD7g0xyXQiDBqQ8PJR60tPCxxoyjlI=; b=jxeCllWU3Tmmdrqp3c9OrIcpS6Q/WVZfNdY9jsB+mCIGN9BSdipi6E80FqcbmCq49E L7YLK3vm/vWhbRDC2uSB4rcw2GBDhre2epUUr3K2paMZJ/8SsI4fUAvPK9OJP8F+pdMh T2bABs7qr0zPXab0HYPa8njHKAV45a9HWDu2JULEd8z99NnMmuRFe+7CcNwk993w5oFb UpFTcllRl1CBKiqrPcjp9wRvpvSuGmywyckDC8V7QkTBV8Hx0zJqYyVq1urSu+f6gLYe tPX5/Ydr0PARwnzuih0fP5BA3C6dZ8p4JPSu+R2g2ONMTy/PMp489wEvS8j654Jt5FyI J4WQ== X-Received: by 10.14.225.4 with SMTP id y4mr102575058eep.6.1356883619729; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:06:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (87-194-105-247.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.105.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w44sm79495746eep.6.2012.12.30.08.06.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:06:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:06:56 +0000 From: RW To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs deprecated Message-ID: <20121230160656.709c409f@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:07:08 -0000 On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:18:37 +0000 Chris Rees wrote: > On 30 Dec 2012 12:58, "Wojciech Puchar" > wrote: > > > > do ports have to be updated this way or i can use portsnap as > > today? will > portsnap be continued or is too deprecated? > > Portsnap is staying. And I understand that freebsd-update can be configured to only update the base system source code. If you don't want development branches you can do without subversion altogether. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 19:39:34 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46CAB6D5 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:39:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:30f:e0::5059:ee8a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E96478FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:39:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (mx1.hvnu.psconsult.nl [46.44.189.154]) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBUJdRqK069483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:39:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: (from paul@localhost) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id qBUJdQqe069482 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:39:26 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) X-Authentication-Warning: mx1.psconsult.nl: paul set sender to freebsd@psconsult.nl using -f Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:39:26 +0100 From: Paul Schenkeveld To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:39:34 -0000 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. > > FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes. > basic operation seems the same. > > Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would > have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes, but how > about performance? UFS2 became necessary when disk got bigger and sizes and block pointers in metadata on UFS1 became too small to fully utilize the larger disks. Because of the larger sizes and pointers UFS2 broke binary compatibility with UFS1 unavoidably, the switch to UFS2 opened the way for other binary incompatilble enhancements to the file system like inode birth times and extended attributes (used by ACL's for example). It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter unless your application requires any of the new features that are not present in UFS1. Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too. HTH Paul Schenkeveld From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 19:41:31 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8417D9 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFB9A8FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:41:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUJfLRh005484; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:41:21 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUJfKcd005477; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:41:21 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:41:20 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Quentin SCHWERKOLT Subject: RE: UFS1 vs UFS2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:41:22 +0100 (CET) Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:41:31 -0000 i chose with newfs as i don't use installer :) anyway - it is not an answer to the question. On Sun, 30 Dec 2012, Quentin SCHWERKOLT wrote: > Since FreeBSD 9.0, you can choose between UFS1 and UFS2 in bsdinstall(8) when creating a new freebsd-ufs partition. > > Q. Schwerkolt > >> Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:21:26 +0100 >> From: wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl >> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org >> Subject: UFS1 vs UFS2 >> >> OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. >> >> FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes. >> basic operation seems the same. >> >> Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would >> have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes, but how >> about performance? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 19:42:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F139C6 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6923B8FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUJgRsR006149; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:42:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUJgRxd006146; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:42:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:42:27 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Paul Schenkeveld Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 In-Reply-To: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> Message-ID: References: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:42:27 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:42:29 -0000 > It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter > unless your application requires any of the new features that are not > present in UFS1. > > Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too. thank you for answering. i don't need any new extra features, just plain filesystem on 60GB filesystem. But question is - will performance be the same, slower or faster? From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 20:03:14 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFB6D27 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:30f:e0::5059:ee8a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D942C8FC0C for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (mx1.hvnu.psconsult.nl [46.44.189.154]) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBUK37lK090563 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: (from paul@localhost) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id qBUK37gd090542 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:07 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) X-Authentication-Warning: mx1.psconsult.nl: paul set sender to freebsd@psconsult.nl using -f Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:03:07 +0100 From: Paul Schenkeveld To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl> References: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:03:14 -0000 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:42:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > It makes perfect sense to use UFS1 on systems where space savings matter > > unless your application requires any of the new features that are not > > present in UFS1. > > > > Nanobsd(8) for example uses UFS1 by default too. > thank you for answering. i don't need any new extra features, just plain > filesystem on 60GB filesystem. But question is - will performance be the > same, slower or faster? I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit (UFS2). If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even mount the filesystem read-only if possible. HTH Paul Schenkeveld From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 20:29:29 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1312FB for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:29:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [188.252.31.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1A28FC08 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:29:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qBUKTRMs062912; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qBUKTRrx062909; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Paul Schenkeveld Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 In-Reply-To: <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl> Message-ID: References: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:29:27 +0100 (CET) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:29:29 -0000 > > I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would > be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes > from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit > (UFS2). thanks for answer i was looking for! i will rebuild FS to UFS1, saving ca 1GB for inodes. > If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even > mount the filesystem read-only if possible. i always turn off atime and use softupdates. it cannot be readonly. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 30 20:47:56 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48F0877 for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:47:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (unknown [IPv6:2001:7b8:30f:e0::5059:ee8a]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DF528FC0A for ; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:47:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.psconsult.nl (mx1.hvnu.psconsult.nl [46.44.189.154]) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBUKlnT8002393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) Received: (from paul@localhost) by mx1.psconsult.nl (8.14.5/8.14.4/Submit) id qBUKlnPH002392; Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:49 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@psconsult.nl) X-Authentication-Warning: mx1.psconsult.nl: paul set sender to freebsd@psconsult.nl using -f Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:47:49 +0100 From: Paul Schenkeveld To: Wojciech Puchar Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121230204749.GA2295@psconsult.nl> References: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> <20121230200307.GA69873@psconsult.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:47:56 -0000 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:29:27PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > > > I don't think performance will be much different but if so, UFS1 would > > be (sightly) faster than UFS2 because one page read will get more inodes > > from disk and 32 bit (UFS1) arithmetic may be slightly faster than 64 bit > > (UFS2). > > thanks for answer i was looking for! i will rebuild FS to UFS1, saving ca > 1GB for inodes. Also, look at the -i option of newfs, for many purposes the default number of inodes it allocates is far more than sufficient > > If performance is an issue, consider turning off atime updates or even > > mount the filesystem read-only if possible. > i always turn off atime and use softupdates. > > it cannot be readonly. From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 01:57:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E9F8F7 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:57:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from joerg@britannica.bec.de) Received: from mo6-p00-ob.rzone.de (mo6-p00-ob.rzone.de [IPv6:2a01:238:20a:202:5300::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 810158FC08 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:57:07 +0000 (UTC) X-RZG-AUTH: :JiIXek6mfvEEUpFQdo7Fj1/zg48CFjWjQv0cW+St/nW/avgusCdtw9+43oQGYIsZZxQQ0xcmsA== X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from britannica.bec.de (cl-3506.cgn-01.de.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:4dd0:ff00:db1::2]) by smtp.strato.de (jorabe mo25) (RZmta 31.11 AUTH) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPA id 205de5oBUN7rfj for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 02:57:05 +0100 (CET) Received: by britannica.bec.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 31 Dec 2012 02:57:01 +0100 Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 02:57:01 +0100 From: Joerg Sonnenberger To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS1 vs UFS2 Message-ID: <20121231015701.GA4711@britannica.bec.de> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121230193926.GA37126@psconsult.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:57:08 -0000 On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 08:39:26PM +0100, Paul Schenkeveld wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:21:26PM +0100, Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > OpenBSD by default use UFS1 for partitions smaller than 1TB. > > > > FreeBSD use always UFS2. UFS2 uses double the amount of space for inodes. > > basic operation seems the same. > > > > Does it make sense to use UFS1 for small filesystem (on SSD) that would > > have few millions of files. It will take less space for inodes, but how > > about performance? > > UFS2 became necessary when disk got bigger and sizes and block pointers > in metadata on UFS1 became too small to fully utilize the larger disks. There is also the possible concern of Extended Attributes. If you use them, you might be a lot more happy with UFS2. Joerg From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 14:33:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37D45ADC; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from masked@internode.on.net) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A2C8FC13; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ppp221-140.static.internode.on.net (HELO forexamplePC) ([150.101.221.140]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with SMTP; 01 Jan 2013 01:03:45 +1030 Message-ID: <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> From: "Michael Vale" To: "Simon J. Gerraty" References: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 01:33:44 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:33:48 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: Simon J. Gerraty Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:00 AM To: Michael Vale Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ; freebsd-arch@freebsd.org ; freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. >Doing the same thing could also prevent the need for a DESTDIR JAIL >install at all and just use the real build machine’s build env, rather >than a jail. Regardless. We still have to install these targets and >their DESTDIR is skewed. There is a few options, I think I know what you mean, but not clear on the "their DESTDIR is skewed" bit. I'm not sure what I meant here either. Thank-you for taking the time to read the entire e-mail! :) >One is to have a MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX like option, and redefine every >target’s DESTDIR ${makeobjDESTDIR} before running do-install. Now i’ve >yet to complete this stage, but I believe this is the way to do it. Would it be sufficient to have an INSTALL_PREFIX and/or INSTALL_DESTDIR so that DESTDIR can be different during install ? [I was recently experimenting with something similar...] So how would that work? pre-install: INSTALL_DESTDIR=/usr/obj/crossoutroot/ DESTDIR=${INSTALL_DESTDIR} do-install: ? I will try something like that. Thank-you for taking the time to reply Simon, Michael Vale. ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 15:37:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F32EF881; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:37:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanegomi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ob0-f176.google.com (mail-ob0-f176.google.com [209.85.214.176]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F2218FC0A; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id un3so11366041obb.7 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:37:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uBXqLFDZbyxzE9qw79sdCK3jopldso1qmOhvyiDRBzo=; b=wZxq/fglN06yy5V8n+1wENbLTlElZnXnvoIPmltdcgrGtyQp6RTaa1w13EPolvGaBx 3jFR5IDSKztJbbZtzcPc9A20WnDrim/qy8jXJOcQ6X2thCMN6Ru+XPx1zzeyWRiFBllf lpoazWJg8nRhLn3ZwpHukzdZSP6WX9c9cxYSLs8oS/EUkz9qHdUHJYbaxaDwY6eYtluK u13oJF+bb/9k+z9RDx5ERJt8IgziK6ughRoCzU2jJP6/UtETu6J+RYJjT+4zI72RbIbV rZe3Jx5bewctsj0q0nQ74H6TC2Ri7BpvRtZ+GHpHbVicMs9mVNBFWmf0ymip6bokwe4V w+Pg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.10.133 with SMTP id i5mr21777668oeb.24.1356968237743; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:37:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.143.33 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:37:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> References: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:37:17 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. From: Garrett Cooper To: Michael Vale Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 15:37:20 -0000 On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Michael Vale wro= te: > -----Original Message----- From: Simon J. Gerraty > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:00 AM > To: Michael Vale > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ; freebsd-arch@freebsd.org ; > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. > > >> Doing the same thing could also prevent the need for a DESTDIR JAIL >> install at all and just use the real build machine=92s build env, rather >> than a jail. Regardless. We still have to install these targets and >> their DESTDIR is skewed. There is a few options, > > > I think I know what you mean, but not clear on the "their DESTDIR is > skewed" bit. You were probably thinking of PREFIX, not DESTDIR. DESTDIR in ports-land should be an install directory wherein if I do... ./configure --prefix=3D/usr/local make all make install DESTDIR=3D/chroot/ It would install all (well, ok most if it needs to touch more of the base system) of the package files into /chroot/usr/local and pathing would be setup appropriately that way. > I'm not sure what I meant here either. Thank-you for taking the time to > read the entire e-mail! :) > >> One is to have a MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX like option, and redefine every >> target=92s DESTDIR ${makeobjDESTDIR} before running do-install. Now i= =92ve >> yet to complete this stage, but I believe this is the way to do it. > > Would it be sufficient to have an INSTALL_PREFIX and/or INSTALL_DESTDIR > so that DESTDIR can be different during install ? > [I was recently experimenting with something similar...] > > > So how would that work? > > pre-install: > INSTALL_DESTDIR=3D/usr/obj/crossoutroot/ > DESTDIR=3D${INSTALL_DESTDIR} > > do-install: > > ? I will try something like that. > > Thank-you for taking the time to reply Simon, I've thought about this item quite a bit and while I might not have hashed out all of the internal details, I think that it should go something like this: 0. Run standard build/install targets which will go and create necessary binaries into a predefined world dir. Once the installation is complete (installworld / distribution)... 1. Mount the necessary mountpoints. 2. Install the "host-compiled" tools into a predefined set of directories. Example: /chroot/h/bin /chroot/h/sbin /chroot/h/usr/bin /chroot/h/usr/libexec /chroot/h/usr/sbin 3. Do a nullfs overlay of the "host-compiled" tools on top of the target system's equivalent directories in order to provide the needed bits for executing the build. 4. Verify sanity for the install base (just in case the new binaries don't run on the host system due to KPI differences) with a basic check like we use for make in `upgrade_checks`. 5. Mock up the build environment to look like the target system, like what's described . 6. Jump into the world dir. 7. Start building/installing packages. Notes: I'm suggesting steps 2. and 3. because while fixing hardcoding in ports packages is a noble effort, there's just way too much work to be done in order to accomplish the job (we have other problems to contend with around the ports tree) and it's an ongoing battle trying to get everyone to use sane build methodologies (I'm making an assumption based on several projects I've used, but many devs aren't capable build system engineers because it takes a bit of mental skewing, so hardcoding abounds in a number of places). Doing this will allow us to have a working prototype quicker, so in the event that others wish to make the process more streamlined in the future, they could do so. Whether or not this handled in the FreeBSD build system or outside it is an implementation detail, but for the sake of modularity (and to keep KISS principle with the FreeBSD build system, which I would argue is complicated enough) I would say make them separate processes. Besides, we already have canned methods for doing this in NanoBSD, PicoBSD, etc already -- and they really could deserve some consolidation (speaking of which, have you looked at using these in zrouter?). You might want to look at FreeNAS 8.x's build architecture and use that as a starting point for how to do things. imp@ designed the initial system, I (gcooper@) modified it heavily, and jhixson@/jpaetzel@ modified it more after I left iXsystems in order to work with their plugin architecture. I can send you a copy of the system I was starting to architect ("Avatar") if you wish. Overall, I like the direction you're going in and I'm glad someone is picking this up. I greatly appreciate it because it's been on my laundry list of items that need to get done for some time :). HTH, -Garrett From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 16:32:00 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AEBE961; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:32:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from masked@internode.on.net) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A80E8FC08; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:31:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ppp221-140.static.internode.on.net (HELO forexamplePC) ([150.101.221.140]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with SMTP; 01 Jan 2013 03:01:54 +1030 Message-ID: <62E9D311E3F4410C93F39BF78047F4C4@forexamplePC> From: "Michael Vale" To: "Garrett Cooper" References: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 03:31:53 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Simon J. Gerraty" , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:32:00 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: Garrett Cooper Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 2:37 AM To: Michael Vale Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ; freebsd-arch@freebsd.org ; freebsd-ports@freebsd.org ; Simon J. Gerraty Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Michael Vale wrote: > -----Original Message----- From: Simon J. Gerraty > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 5:00 AM > To: Michael Vale > Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ; freebsd-arch@freebsd.org ; > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. > > >> Doing the same thing could also prevent the need for a DESTDIR JAIL >> install at all and just use the real build machine’s build env, rather >> than a jail. Regardless. We still have to install these targets and >> their DESTDIR is skewed. There is a few options, > > > I think I know what you mean, but not clear on the "their DESTDIR is > skewed" bit. You were probably thinking of PREFIX, not DESTDIR. DESTDIR in ports-land should be an install directory wherein if I do... ./configure --prefix=/usr/local make all make install DESTDIR=/chroot/ It would install all (well, ok most if it needs to touch more of the base system) of the package files into /chroot/usr/local and pathing would be setup appropriately that way. Ahh, What I think I meant was their DESTDIR is skewed because it installs into ${JAILDIR}, not ${DESTDIR}${ROOTFS}, which could just == ${DESTDIR}. ${PREFIX} cannot be used as it is required to be correct for pkg register, pkgdb, ldconfig etc. > I'm not sure what I meant here either. Thank-you for taking the time to > read the entire e-mail! :) > >> One is to have a MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX like option, and redefine every >> target’s DESTDIR ${makeobjDESTDIR} before running do-install. Now i’ve >> yet to complete this stage, but I believe this is the way to do it. > > Would it be sufficient to have an INSTALL_PREFIX and/or INSTALL_DESTDIR > so that DESTDIR can be different during install ? > [I was recently experimenting with something similar...] > > > So how would that work? > > pre-install: > INSTALL_DESTDIR=/usr/obj/crossoutroot/ > DESTDIR=${INSTALL_DESTDIR} > > do-install: > > ? I will try something like that. > > Thank-you for taking the time to reply Simon, I've thought about this item quite a bit and while I might not have hashed out all of the internal details, I think that it should go something like this: 0. Run standard build/install targets which will go and create necessary binaries into a predefined world dir. Once the installation is complete (installworld / distribution)... 1. Mount the necessary mountpoints. 2. Install the "host-compiled" tools into a predefined set of directories. Example: /chroot/h/bin /chroot/h/sbin /chroot/h/usr/bin /chroot/h/usr/libexec /chroot/h/usr/sbin 3. Do a nullfs overlay of the "host-compiled" tools on top of the target system's equivalent directories in order to provide the needed bits for executing the build. 4. Verify sanity for the install base (just in case the new binaries don't run on the host system due to KPI differences) with a basic check like we use for make in `upgrade_checks`. 5. Mock up the build environment to look like the target system, like what's described . 6. Jump into the world dir. 7. Start building/installing packages. Notes: I'm suggesting steps 2. and 3. because while fixing hardcoding in ports packages is a noble effort, there's just way too much work to be done in order to accomplish the job (we have other problems to contend with around the ports tree) and it's an ongoing battle trying to get everyone to use sane build methodologies (I'm making an assumption based on several projects I've used, but many devs aren't capable build system engineers because it takes a bit of mental skewing, so hardcoding abounds in a number of places). Doing this will allow us to have a working prototype quicker, so in the event that others wish to make the process more streamlined in the future, they could do so. Whether or not this handled in the FreeBSD build system or outside it is an implementation detail, but for the sake of modularity (and to keep KISS principle with the FreeBSD build system, which I would argue is complicated enough) I would say make them separate processes. Besides, we already have canned methods for doing this in NanoBSD, PicoBSD, etc already -- and they really could deserve some consolidation (speaking of which, have you looked at using these in zrouter?). You might want to look at FreeNAS 8.x's build architecture and use that as a starting point for how to do things. imp@ designed the initial system, I (gcooper@) modified it heavily, and jhixson@/jpaetzel@ modified it more after I left iXsystems in order to work with their plugin architecture. I can send you a copy of the system I was starting to architect ("Avatar") if you wish. Overall, I like the direction you're going in and I'm glad someone is picking this up. I greatly appreciate it because it's been on my laundry list of items that need to get done for some time :). HTH, -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 18:42:26 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46356D13; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:42:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from masked@internode.on.net) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40A8D8FC08; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ppp221-140.static.internode.on.net (HELO forexamplePC) ([150.101.221.140]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with SMTP; 01 Jan 2013 05:12:23 +1030 Message-ID: <674B18C07D96418681C34AD34370F5B6@forexamplePC> From: "Michael Vale" To: "Simon J. Gerraty" References: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> <20121231174308.05BDE58094@chaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <20121231174308.05BDE58094@chaos.jnpr.net> Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 05:42:19 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3505.912 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3505.912 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:42:26 -0000 -----Original Message----- From: Simon J. Gerraty Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 4:43 AM To: Michael Vale Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org ; freebsd-arch@freebsd.org ; freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. >>One is to have a MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX like option, and redefine every >>target’s DESTDIR ${makeobjDESTDIR} before running do-install. Now i’ve >>yet to complete this stage, but I believe this is the way to do it. > >Would it be sufficient to have an INSTALL_PREFIX and/or INSTALL_DESTDIR >so that DESTDIR can be different during install ? >[I was recently experimenting with something similar...] > >So how would that work? I was assuming a sub-make involved: install: ${MAKE} DESTDIR=${INSTALL_DESTDIR} realinstall Thank-you Simon, that seems to have done the trick. I'll finish up my 'initial' work and submit a patch! ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/5998 - Release Date: 12/30/12 From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 31 17:45:53 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 786D322B; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:45:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sjg@juniper.net) Received: from exprod7og103.obsmtp.com (exprod7og103.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275598FC08; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:45:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob103.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUOHPR4X1WDfWEaj4M3ZMhmiCWqlGiFnZ@postini.com; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:45:53 PST Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:43:08 -0800 Received: from chaos.jnpr.net (chaos.jnpr.net [172.24.29.229]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id qBVHh8338885; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:43:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sjg@juniper.net) Received: from chaos.jnpr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chaos.jnpr.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BDE58094; Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:43:08 -0800 (PST) To: Michael Vale Subject: Re: Cross Compiling of ports Makefiles. In-Reply-To: <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> References: <20121227180044.7947F58094@chaos.jnpr.net> <641F54E990B14A0AB0A287AE7F810192@forexamplePC> Comments: In-reply-to: "Michael Vale" message dated "Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:33:44 +1100." From: "Simon J. Gerraty" X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82+cvs; nmh 1.3; GNU Emacs 22.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 09:43:07 -0800 Message-ID: <20121231174308.05BDE58094@chaos.jnpr.net> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:43:28 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:45:53 -0000 >>One is to have a MAKEOBJDIRPREFIX like option, and redefine every >>target=E2=80=99s DESTDIR ${makeobjDESTDIR} before running do-install. No= w i=E2=80=99ve >>yet to complete this stage, but I believe this is the way to do it. > >Would it be sufficient to have an INSTALL_PREFIX and/or INSTALL_DESTDIR >so that DESTDIR can be different during install ? >[I was recently experimenting with something similar...] > >So how would that work? I was assuming a sub-make involved: install: ${MAKE} DESTDIR=3D${INSTALL_DESTDIR} realinstall