From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 4 01:36:56 2012 Return-Path: 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 DA848503 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 01:36:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nwhitehorn@freebsd.org) Received: from argol.doit.wisc.edu (argol.doit.wisc.edu [144.92.197.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E5A8FC08 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 01:36:55 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed Received: from avs-daemon.smtpauth3.wiscmail.wisc.edu by smtpauth3.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) id <0MCX00M00TPDPC00@smtpauth3.wiscmail.wisc.edu> for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:36:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from comporellon.tachypleus.net (adsl-71-150-249-157.dsl.mdsnwi.sbcglobal.net [71.150.249.157]) by smtpauth3.wiscmail.wisc.edu (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.05 32bit (built Jul 30 2009)) with ESMTPSA id <0MCX00I3NTPBAH10@smtpauth3.wiscmail.wisc.edu>; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:36:48 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:36:47 -0500 From: Nathan Whitehorn Subject: Re: SU+J on 9.1-RC2 ISO In-reply-to: <20121103190930.GA23145@icarus.home.lan> To: Jeremy Chadwick Message-id: <5095B89F.4070705@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Report: AuthenticatedSender=yes, SenderIP=71.150.249.157 X-Spam-PmxInfo: Server=avs-14, Version=5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.11.4.2416, SenderIP=71.150.249.157 References: <20121103190930.GA23145@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121019 Thunderbird/16.0.1 Cc: b.smeelen@ose.nl, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 01:36:56 -0000 There's an existing checkbox to disable it. There was substantial consensus for 9.0 that SUJ was something we wanted -- I'd personally be very hesitant to change the defaults without more input from FS people. I think this discussion should be moved to freebsd-fs@ or freebsd-current@ instead of stable@ since it's actually a filesystem issue not an installer issue. -Nathan On 11/03/12 14:09, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > (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. >