Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:41:25 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: will@csociety.org Subject: Re: Fix make release for 4-STABLE Message-ID: <400DA085.7080007@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200401201502.18549.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040118235148M.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20040119095453.GA43280@pc5.i.0x5.de> <20040119195826X.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <200401201502.18549.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > 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. > This is excellent work. Thanks a lot. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?400DA085.7080007>