Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:09:30 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> To: b.smeelen@ose.nl Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO Message-ID: <20121103190930.GA23145@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Please keep me CC'd, as I'm not subscribed to -stable) I've CC'd Nathan Whitehorn, who according to bsdinstall(8) is the author (not sure if maintainer) of the code. This default has already begun to bite users/SAs in the ass: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2012-November/246069.html SU+J (the journalling part specifically) needs to be disabled by default in the installer. This default was a very bad choice and should not have been done. It either indicates someone was out of touch with the rest of the issues surrounding the feature, or that someone intentionally decided "it's the best way to get people using it for testing" (I have seen this justification presented in the past, and it is the wrong approach). However, since some people DO want it (and those folks don't use dump), the installer should be modified to make SU+J support toggleable via a a checkbox. The default, obviously, should be unchecked. If the user checks the checkbox, an ominous warning message should be displayed informing the user of the repercussions. The only option at that point should be "OK", after which the checkbox is checked. Do not tell me "send patches". This issue/problem has gone on long enough, and the community bitched hard/long enough, that the person who committed this default should be responsible for fixing it. We should operate under the assumption that this bug/problem will never be fixed. It probably will be, but again, we must operate with the assumption that Kirk et al will require years to fix it. (It has already been something like 9 months. Or is it a year?) While I'm here -- does anyone remember the exact commit which was done sometime in the past 6-9 months which "made the installer work properly with SSDs" (re: partition alignment)? I have questions about that; if I remember right, someone set the alignment size to 4KBytes, and that is completely 100% wrong -- it needs to be 1MByte or 2MBytes if you want to be extra cautious, which correlates with NAND erase block size, otherwise we're not really solving jack squat. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator http://jdc.koitsu.org/ | | Mountain View, CA, US | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121103190930.GA23145>