From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 20 12:12:25 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5604C16A4CF for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:12:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail4.speakeasy.net (mail4.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16C043D45 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 12:12:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 32236 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2004 20:12:06 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 20 Jan 2004 20:12:06 -0000 Received: from 10.50.41.236 (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0KKC2M0014389; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:12:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Makoto Matsushita , list@rachinsky.de Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 15:02:18 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20040118235148M.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20040119095453.GA43280@pc5.i.0x5.de> <20040119195826X.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20040119195826X.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200401201502.18549.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org cc: re@freebsd.org cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: will@csociety.org Subject: Re: Fix make release for 4-STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:12:25 -0000 On Monday 19 January 2004 05:58 am, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > list> What about splitting the floppies? Splitfs support is already on > list> the 4.9-RELEASE disks. > > That would be a viable option, but the great downside of using splitfs > is that all of splitted chunks are required for all users. > > In the current configuration, drivers.flp is an option; if you don't > need to use modules in drivers.flp, you only need two floppies. If > the kernel and/or mfsroot image are splitted into, say, three > floppies, we have to have three floppies. > > Yes, floppies are so cheap to buy, but sometimes not handy you know. > I believe that some of my friends said to me that "hey, I'm so tired > to write THREE floppy images, it's so slow!" > > It would be technically easy to introduce splitfs for kernel/mfsroot > (it is already there), but it also introduce an important design change. > We should have enough time to consider that we decide the 3rd floppy > image treats a mandatory one. I have splitfs done in a p4 tree. Currently for i386 on current it takes up 3 floppies. One more floppy image is not all that bad, and it removes all the kernel module complication. This is using a GENERIC kernel, so it greatly simplifies release building and requires no more tweaking of BOOTMFS to make stuff "just fit". I'm currently doing some final testing before committing it to HEAD as I've occasionally had problems with the split images being loaded off of floppy. I added a md5 command to the loader today and it verified that the mfsroot and kernel were read ok, however. I have this bad feeling that there is some kind of memory corruption bug in the loader and that the problem goes away if you use a loader that has forth in it. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org