From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 2 14:56:05 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7DE216A40D; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:56:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [64.129.166.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D2E13C4C6; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 14:56:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l22Eu45q020457; Fri, 2 Mar 2007 08:56:04 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <45E83B04.2010009@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:56:04 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070204) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <00cb01c75c5b$4205e390$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <45E82660.4030107@freebsd.org> <008101c75cd1$42a4df10$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <45E830A8.8020104@freebsd.org> <00ac01c75cd8$4e5d57e0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <00ac01c75cd8$4e5d57e0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.4/2701/Fri Mar 2 08:16:16 2007 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=8.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.6 (2006-10-03) on mh1.centtech.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysinstall creates corrupt filesystems after repartitioning X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:56:05 -0000 On 03/02/07 08:37, Steven Hartland wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: >> On 03/02/07 07:46, Steven Hartland wrote: >> Mounting an NFS share on top of a skimmed down /usr is very common, >> and very desirable. You may mount /usr from a small read-only >> partition (vnode file, etc) and then mount a different partition or >> NFS over it if you detect the one you want. >> >> I think this comes down to: if it hurts, stop doing it. :) >> >> Maybe sysinstall should warn you that you are double mounting, but I >> don't want it to stop letting me do it. > > Interesting if that's a valid thing to do why does everything > break when its done? Is it ment to be doing a union hence you get > the combined contents of both? If so its not working correctly in > this case :( Can you provide me with more info on how this is > supposed to work eric please. No, it won't do a union unless you use union. Things break because you mounted an empty /usr on top of a working /usr. That just breaks things, because you probably need binaries in /usr. The OS doesn't know whether you want to mount an empty fs on a populated one, or what. It does exactly what you ask it to do, and in this case, it was a bad thing. Think of a thin client that has just enough stuff in /usr to make it boot and run a few tools. Then, depending on a startup option, it mounts a more populated /usr from NFS (or even a local disk, doesn't really matter) over the previous /usr. The fact is this: you made a new partition, called it /usr, and told sysinstall to mount it. It did. That happened to be a problem for you, which I could imagine it would be. Now, I'm not claiming this is the cause of your file system corruption issues. I'm just saying the duplicate mount is not a bug, it's a feature. Eric