From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 18 19:28:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA00769 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:28:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from shrimp.dataplex.net (shrimp.dataplex.net [208.2.87.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id TAA00757 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:28:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from [208.2.87.4] (user4.dataplex.net [208.2.87.4]) by shrimp.dataplex.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15755; Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:28:14 -0600 (CST) X-Sender: rkw@mail.dataplex.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <199803182359.PAA23639@dingo.cdrom.com> References: Your message of "Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:08:02 CST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 21:03:24 -0600 To: Mike Smith From: Richard Wackerbarth Subject: Re: Disk layout concernes (was Re: ATTENTION: Call for opinion re: root device naming change ) Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk At 5:59 PM -0600 3/18/98, Mike Smith wrote: >> At 4:32 PM -0600 3/18/98, Mike Smith wrote: >> >The information so far is a good start; it's a disk configured with >> >'disklabel auto'. >> >> As I recall, you had previously mentioned that to be the case which >> was giving you trouble. > >That's correct; it was. >This left a >number of people (yourself included) severely inconvenienced, which I >deeply regret. My only concern was that it happened in "stable" and I sensed a push to leave it in when I had not yet seen the fix. > >> > Now, how about the failure mode? What version of kern/vfs_conf.c are >> >you using? >> >> Well, it's too late to tell... >> While I was waiting for your reply, I did another update. >> kern/vfs_conf.c got changed in the process. I suspect that means that >> my latest attempt did not have your latest change. > >Ah. Does the new code work? The change in question was implemented a >few days ago; I let it sit in -current for a few before that to make >sure that it wasn't going to burn people again. Sorry that I missed the message. I would have tried it sooner. (And, as a result, not complained so much.) >> > How old is the bootblock on the disk? >> How do I easily tell? > >You don't, unfortunately. Updating the bootblock is something you do >explicitly; normally it's laid down when you label the disk the first >time and never changed. In retrospect, if you used 'disklabel auto' >on the disk in the first place, the bootblock is more than adequately >new. That's what I thought. I have only "very new" bootblocks in my system files. But that doesn't say anything about the last time that I rewrote the bootblocks. Mine are probably fairly recent because I have a vague recollection of rewriting just the bootblocks in order to get one of the newer features in the kernel selection. >There are some strong arguments in both directions. If your system(s) >are working correctly now, there are only a couple of minor issues and >one remaining plaintiff to resolve before I am happy that we handle >everything as well now as we ever have. > >> I'll let you know just as soon I get a new kernel to try. Good news. The latest kernel boots just fine. Now the only "problem" that I see is the "confusion factor" /kernel: changing root device to sd0s5a I hope that that can either be fixed or very well documented before the unknowing masses get hold of it. It doesn't worry me, on my personal systems. But I do see it as a Customer Support issue. Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message