Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:52:24 +0000 From: tech-lists <tech-lists@zyxst.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 12.1-STABLE r354923 snapshot install doesn't like manual ufs setup Message-ID: <20191127155224.GC75104@bastion.zyxst.net> In-Reply-To: <20191127131609.e69ab03c.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20191127033739.GB75104@bastion.zyxst.net> <20191127131609.e69ab03c.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 01:15:42PM +0100, Polytropon wrote: >On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 03:37:39 +0000, tech-lists wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Got a new ssd so tried latest snapshot install to it. I wanted seperate = /usr >> /var and / partitions, also to enable trim, also two 16GB swap partition= s, >> so selected manual UFS, completed the install, reboot, cannot find kerne= l. > >Did you do this using the bsdinstall program, or manually >via shell? I don't know specifically if it was the bsdinstall program. I guess it was.= It was whatever is invoked after booting the install disk/image and then selecting "Install". >> Repeated the install the same way again with same result. Rebooted, ran >> the installer for a third time, selected auto ufs and everything worked >> as expected on reboot, but of course without the modifications I wanted. >> >> Is this a known issue? > >Even though bsdinstall isn't that bad, I personally prefer >to prepare the disk via shell commands manually before I >return to bsdinstall, add the created partitions, and have >the installer do it's work, in case I needed something that >is "non-standard" (as you've described). This is because of >my impression (I wouldn't call it an issue though) that the >bsdinstall program doesn't understand when you leave its >predefined path... ;-) I'd say if it's not working as suggested or implied then it's broken, or why have the manual option at all? I don't expect the consequence of selecting this option to be "doesn't install a kernel" or "everything is installed, i= t's just not bootable" without notification. I've not encountered the issue before because my installation context is mostly bhyve-based so I just accept the defaults. Because this is bare meta= l, I was hoping to optimise the SSD somewhat. >> Also, MBR is selected by default. SHould I be using GPT instead, nowaday= s? >Probably yes. Use GPT. Use MBR only if you have a good reason >to do so (inter-OS things might be such a case). There should be a reason why this is selected as default. "Most x86 systems" isn't enough. I'd fix this if I knew how. What is the GPT advantage? thanks for the clarification --=20 J. --p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEE8n3tWhxW11Ccvv9/s8o7QhFzNAUFAl3em8sACgkQs8o7QhFz NAX3Yg/+MHqY4sEQi03v+5NMS+D/Dt4gQr25i88ge/17k/p5uqUCNjTO2tIcwGM4 pc1/7VN03T8cU4RMO7cL92kIwWxkNwZY/SyFUmQlgQGuoiUJCoveUW5dnwuupzAv R/G/R3erAsGHjTPI+B3dFrIfFuBh+nKeyzeq/aU9jtEw/t+Wd7M03Jm1UmPQXcli 6zCf72WIqZ4l282nTbjXJIoCfVHZb9iQQSQ0plr8UlWKnAi7e7iIiZXteYwknNX3 XGPlmZHmfcnp08rlILSUlHtFGY3+yMhpcqfGxSm9GCZXyDZlCX5DUPJJ4Hu/RHsx UpYJWBx0myzcQMgieQetd9a4Qu0idt3gXPUY0uAxKcC6MhAJqCDSgHLtJNb4Q7QR StvfUuVp2AQxJ0yFJBE4PH1dqkeeAG2vTP6HSZTGhHml9IAt5AcTiV0sN8zhKgUg wBaCK1XRUUW6Oj6RiCMQFWixC9zaJEYuTdiOghobwqgnlhnLwbjIMwtXtwyP6VPv z6gn9okgk3SF37g4kqizs/ebva8l/t3NFhqu6ktAAOuQ+q295GKlc/GhACNm0+cT W1nBrTFzUIZSUwKZV9kOrVZU/LsviXBbsq0vR09FUyHdoq6+jWXsNByx0LIOyC4S DsattooMyIoT1+vIM8hex8lVTmL0XrYV+MgVVMv3nv1YzmKKQv0= =wngM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --p2kqVDKq5asng8Dg--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191127155224.GC75104>