Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:12:50 +0200 From: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.3: /stand/ versus /rescue/ ? Message-ID: <200410080812.51210.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> In-Reply-To: <416627B8.40601@freebsd.org> References: <20041003124353.29822.qmail@web54005.mail.yahoo.com> <200410071043.09015.josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> <416627B8.40601@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 08 October 2004 07:38, you wrote: > Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > > On Thursday 07 October 2004 05:40, Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>/etc/rc.d/initdiskless should not be using either > >>/stand or /rescue. > > > > Compressed tarball are the most standard and secure way for net > > boot and are in real use. > > > > My 2x250 GB HD doesn't have any problem with the 2 MB stand. > > But it does have problems with the few dozen KB of > uncompressed tarball? > > Tim Neither. My scripting need to know what is the required format. I think this matters on initdiskless roots. But expect POLA claims on this. Get a cluster safe working is not as easy as you can expect. And any downtime have really expensive cost. Check any change on this with a real initdiskless setup before. Also, speak loud and clear (HEADS-UP). -- josemi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410080812.51210.josemi>