Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 18:34:50 -0400 From: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Eduardo Morras <nec556@retena.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [rfc] replacing /boot/kernel.old with a unique directory name Message-ID: <20110814223450.GB23401@DataIX.net> In-Reply-To: <4E481E0B.2010906@freebsd.org> References: <20110813195127.GA34295@freebsd.org> <CC816BA30D11428593A03EF5FF449295@multiplay.co.uk> <4D6348DC0228459C@> <4E481E0B.2010906@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 12:12:11PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 8/14/11 3:27 AM, Eduardo Morras wrote: > > At 22:06 13/08/2011, Steven Hartland wrote: > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Best"=20 > >> <arundel@freebsd.org> > >> > >>> i just had the following idea: how about instead of copying the=20 > >>> current kernel > >>> to /boot/kernel.old and then installing the new one under=20 > >>> /boot/kernel as the > >>> results of target installkernel, we create a unique directory name=20 > >>> for the old > >>> kernel? > >> > >> The default size of / is likely your biggest problem. > > > > Don't know how much compresable is /boot/kernel.old but tar with -z=20 > > or -j may be a workaround. We can extract on demand and swap current=20 > > /boot/kernel with new /boot/kernel. Other way of do it is link=20 > > /boot/kernel to current kernel and update it, but i don't know=20 > > (again) if it would work in single user mode. >=20 > What would make more sense to me for thsi would be a kernel name that=20 > was recognised by teh final boot stages as being an exeprimental=20 > kernel and moved to the new location only on successful boot.. Once=20 > you have successfully booted it, then you delete the kernel[-1] and do=20 > the replacement that "make installkernel" now does. >=20 All is fine and dandy with all of these suggestions but has the root filesystem space been bumped up at all yet ? The root filesystem space is merely almost adequte for what we have now... just barely and until it is none of these are feasable especially for existing systems. --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) Comment: http://bit.ly/0x89D8547E iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOSE2JAAoJEJBXh4mJ2FR+m+MH/iWNIoGIpLsrKhG6Xh/A9cS0 z46SBBhh2UJiJpcMEpfEdZqBUZbWjSnYm1cJMP3tO2PL5Hzgi5yDoBpsVyTOs2ui gJ2SX+hyLn5j4UstQXRRq9zBmLkFy7EJ36UIG88UuRXJa0meBO6qW/bp45ebqt1H 3w7oWlZElflHSJ5Mc+hW3Y7rqCmCGIUSzUFf13GkezzARah9OgtHq68zCGw3iiQ2 ow34BYzH96QeHFQVWDI1dDFIs3CK0Z67nabkeg666KD+00M5wcH+vNzWXtvTQoIS 496YOInyIVUPi69dwwLTHVqptM9XKv2W8VIM4QOfE/LHQ6CFoeBGoXMFV8Wqt6c= =9+zJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110814223450.GB23401>