DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > FreeBSD > FreeBSD Installation and Upgrading

FreeBSD Installation and Upgrading Installing and upgrading FreeBSD.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 4th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default FBSD installer took away all control ...

... like Windows or should I pretend to be happy. I just downloaded 9.0 AGAIN about three weeks ago and it only had the January version as usual... now I find this:

05-12-2011
FreeBSD-9.0-CURRENT-201105-amd64-dvd1.iso
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/201105/

How to install fbsd 9.0
http://blather.michaelwlucas.com/archives/750
and /tmp is still in there to fill up your HDD a difference way, so ...

It seem the new FreeBSD installer force the use of zfs in FBSD 9.0 . I hope this is not true but that's what I got I think. Now I wonder do this mean that Qjail will not work for FBSD-9.0. For the past few days, I left no stone un-turn. I read all, I mean ALL I could find about Qjail and today I just found, downloaded and installed FBSD-9.0 (May 12, 2011) on a test machine. It look sick to me. I think this is zfs so this may be right up the desktop people alley for what I read about zfs. I think FBSD gave-in and using the PcBSD way of doing things. I guest after all the years of people complaining about the old installers .... now look what you get.

Quote:
# df -m
/dev/ada0a 29748 1294 26074 5% /
dev 0 0 0 /dev
no hint or clue of anything else inside.


I also read a thread at the qJail Mail-List from last JULY where someone indicated that Qjail do not/did not support zfs.

just like I just said in post #3 ... by time I get there it be history.
http://www.daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=6116


I give up.


PS:
After thinking a bit, if UFS install don't work, I'm sure they will fix it by production. If UFS does work I think this version would make way for perfect qjails with the new .sujournal and all. Its a 32MB file.

Anyway, also it throws your HDD out of wack. Under Partition Commander you can see it mark the Primary as "Damaged". This is ny 3rd try and I still found no way to format as UFS. And it destroyed the ready-made one I gave it the first time. I think Qjail said you have to use the same version for Jail that is running on your machine. If so, that may be the next show stopper

Ok,
I had to try one more time and when I gave it a ready-made 30GB UFS again this time I did it manually and it went farther this time... it started installing but now it gave me this error:

Extract Error:
Code:
Error while extracting base .txz:
Can't set user=0/group for var/emptyCan't 
update time for var/empty.
... Maybe they will find this someday. I don't think me joining a mail-list is going to help anything. Who listens to noobs.


just one more time: this time I took the guide and it selected the 2nd 30GB UFS but it is now 42GB... That is not what I wrote with P.Commander. It was 30GB, 30GB and 15GB. What happen was, FreeBSD skipped the first one and took the 2nd one and added the 3rd one to it AND made a 2.5GB swap and added the balance of primary-3 12GB out of 15 to Primary-2. That is DIRTY computing, PERIOD. You don't take partitons away and ask nothing about it.

Anyway it did a complete install. After reboot, it FROZE at "Loading Operating System"

This tells me that zfs is enforced or you got to use the entire HDD or it just don't like sharris anymore, or it never did because I'm the one who told you all how to have more than one FBSD installed on your HDD. Sharris give-it, FreeBSD (may have) took it away. They were in the cut, listening all along. heehee One thing for sure, with-out SLICES you loss two or more PRIMARYS and you only have three ... that would be four when they take away your extented like Windows once dream of.

By time you got to Geogia, she was gone!

Hope you have better luck

Last edited by sharris; 4th July 2011 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 4th July 2011
Beastie Beastie is offline
Daemonology student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: /dev/earth0
Posts: 271
Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Okay, I haven't touched 9 yet or really followed the development closely so I'll be brief.
  • I doubt UFS will be abandoned in favor of ZFS any time soon. If it was, the devs wouldn't still be working on improvements and extensions from time to time (including now -- 64-bit quotas). ZFS may be the default (i.e. not only) FS in the final RELEASE though.
  • The entire installation program is new and intended to replace sysinstall completely. As far as I know there was UFS-only support when they started and people were complaining and "getting desperate". The devs have probably added ZFS support not so long ago and are testing it.
  • This is a CURRENT (development) snapshot and we're 2 months from the expected RELEASE (definitely more from the "real" one). Give them some time. If you encounter problems while testing, submit a PR if no one else already did.
__________________
May the source be with you!
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 5th July 2011
Oko's Avatar
Oko Oko is offline
Fsck Surgeon
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kosovo, Serbia
Posts: 856
Thanked 36 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beastie View Post
[list][*]I doubt UFS will be abandoned in favor of ZFS any time soon. If it was, the devs wouldn't still be working on improvements and extensions from time to time (including now -- 64-bit quotas). ZFS may be the default (i.e. not only) FS in the final RELEASE though.
I do not want to sound rude but above statement is rather silly. UFS and ZFS are not competing file systems. ZFS has no business on a desktop with a single hard drive in particularly on the root partition. ZFS is designed for large data centers and file servers.
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 5th July 2011
Beastie Beastie is offline
Daemonology student
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: /dev/earth0
Posts: 271
Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oko View Post
I do not want to sound rude but above statement is rather silly. UFS and ZFS are not competing file systems. ZFS has no business on a desktop with a single hard drive in particularly on the root partition. ZFS is designed for large data centers and file servers.
1. I didn't say they're competing file systems and don't believe UFS will ever be removed. Just because both are (or will be) proposed in the new installer doesn't mean they are. It just means the many users who wanted to install FreeBSD on ZFS can now do so. Unofficial/unsupported methods existed for a long time anyway...
2. I don't know what we are disagreeing about. I'm well aware of everything you said and totally agree with it. Furthermore, I personally don't use ZFS on my desktop systems. Though many people do, including on single disk ones. Just take a look at the official forums and you'll find quite a few people doing so.
__________________
May the source be with you!
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Though many people do, including on single disk ones.
Nearly everybody even the new freebsd.forum push ZFS like it is the greatest desktop/laptop feature ever, and only a few will include what platform it is actually suppose to be use for. But that's ok, they love it, but it took many months, I mean many months and now I think it's not need for simple dedicated web-servers and a overkill if you not running raid or something.

Quote:
ZFS is designed for large data centers and file servers.
Thank Oko, FINALLY, now the facts hit the fan. No need for me to use it in simple dedicated web-server running in qJails. What a relieve

Quote:
Give them some time. If you encounter problems while testing, submit a PR if no one else already did.
My problem is I stay a member of very few forums. No mail-List and no tweeters, because lots of times I'm way off-base so if I got to be a wrong or pitch a [B], it be at home-base and not world-wide. I been gutting Windows OS's from day-1 and FreeBSD is where it ends for me. I usually find something strange every other month and 60% are usually false alarms, hidden-software issues or even the OS main underlying tools being the issue and I bust them sometime. I post when I think others should be concern and if they agree, I hope they would pass it on to the developers or that developers know where to go to places that talk a little tech and don't play ball to please. I can't stop to learn who to report to, I got to keep working on it. Nobody can be an expert of every field in computing. Even a heart specialist knows very little of brain surgery. I think FreeBSD was just throwing it out as you indicated Beastie. This time, the first time EVER, I think it was a dangerous thing to do and it should have came with some notes, intentions, warning on what to do and not to do and how to install. I found that how-to link "AFTER" I destroyed one of my main partitions on my personal dream-machine. Than I found a extra drive to test on. Months of work and notes could have been destroyed. Suppose I did not have backup. No way I expected this out of a FreeBSD iso. A ISO designed for a dangerously dedicated disk install. Even the handbook say "DON'T DO IT".

I just hope all OS developers knows it's alright for them not to meet all expected dead-line functions every 6-months. Just skip it and re-think better for the next round. They came to far to be playing guesting games that could break the OS five to ten years down the line completely. Sometime it's not worth trying to keep up with the Jones and we are not about to turn our backs one of the Greatest OS in the World just because they needed more time to get something new, perfectly implemented. One thing for sure, I learn how to be more careful, but please, no more crash-course.

I been learning for a year this is the "daemonforums" ... known around the world to be cool, quite and not so active but I can assure you it on the map BIGTIME. Many other forums members speak highly of this place. I live on google to code Windows and soon BSD, so I can say to developers, don't forget to do a relaxing read here before commenting anything. Not everyone has time to join your mail-list and what nots. You do have people to do some searching other than your own mail-list and PR, don't you?

Carpetsmoker's, crew and some long-time members; I can tell you now, you guys are well known and you should be very proud.
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th July 2011
Carpetsmoker's Avatar
Carpetsmoker Carpetsmoker is offline
Real Name: Martin
Old man from scene 24
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
Posts: 2,088
Thanked 198 Times in 156 Posts
Default

OpenSolaris and Solaris use ZFS almost exclusively. Even on a single-disk single-filesystem layout.
__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th July 2011
roddierod's Avatar
roddierod roddierod is offline
Real Name: Rod Person
VPN Cryptographer
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 383
Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharris View Post
It seem the new FreeBSD installer force the use of zfs in FBSD 9.0 .
I install 9 about a month ago on an extra machine and did not encounter this issue. And as I reacall it defaulted to UFS for myself.

In sysinstalls, fdisk you can - or should be able to - select the T option for file system type of a partition, then use 165 for UFS, did you try that?
__________________
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -Philip K. Dick
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th July 2011
Randux Randux is offline
Disgruntled desktop user
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Siberia
Posts: 100
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker View Post
OpenSolaris and Solaris use ZFS almost exclusively. Even on a single-disk single-filesystem layout.
Ok I have to agree with Oko on this one.

Yes, it's true ZFS is used a lot on Solaris (I don't know about OpenSolaris since I don't use it) but the default Solaris 10 install is still UFS. 99.9% of Solaris 10 installs are on big systems with many drives. If you follow the opensolaris zfs list (I do) you can see the questions they ask, nobody ever asked about one drive. They are talking about issues with dozens of drives, setups I would love to have!

ZFS on a single drive isn't totally useless, because you do get very nice features like snapshots and not having to decide the size of your partitions when you install. But the main feature that makes ZFS popular for enterprise use is the checksumming and recovery. If you have a single drive all the system can tell you is your filesystem or drive is no good, and refuse to use it. That might even be worse in some cases then UFS. If you have at least two drives, you have a very good chance of surviving the total loss of one drive or heavy corruption on one drive.

I recently had a BIOS problem on a Solaris 10 machine with a dead CMOS battery with 2 drives in mirror config. The system came up and started frying one of my drives. I got diagnostic messages from ZFS (although it went into a shutdown and reboot loop) and was able to start in single user mode and find the bad files and do a scrub on the pool and I lost nothing. I would have lost about a month's worth of work if I didn't use ZFS. So yeah, ZFS is great but you really need *at least* two drives or you won't get the most advantage. Drives are cheap. You should really have two if you use ZFS. I have no experience on BSD with ZFS though.

And BTW to sharris, ZFS people tell you "DO NOT USE HARDWARE RAID!" if you use ZFS. Let ZFS manage the configuration. You have many ZFS RAID options.
__________________
BSDForums.org refugee #27
Multibooting with LILO
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 6th July 2011
rocket357's Avatar
rocket357 rocket357 is offline
Real Name: Jonathon
Wannabe OpenBSD porter
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 340
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randux View Post
And BTW to sharris, ZFS people tell you "DO NOT USE HARDWARE RAID!" if you use ZFS. Let ZFS manage the configuration. You have many ZFS RAID options.
I've never used ZFS (pure XFS where I work), but I can't imagine defaulting to software RAID for performance reasons. I just don't see how software RAID can touch a nice RAID card like an Areca 1680. Even later model Dell PERC H series, for that matter...

I manage very large disk arrays (some in excess of 16 TB) and I can't imagine trying to run one of my larger PostgreSQL databases on software RAID. It doesn't make sense in terms of performance. It's difficult enough to keep an entire state government happy with database performance without shooting yourself in the foot from the very beginning (though I'll admit I didn't take non-hardware RAID very seriously during testing).
__________________
Linux Admin by Profession. OpenBSD user by choice.
Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Download-1 - - 413 MB – about 5 hours:
FreeBSD-9.0-CURRENT-2011-04-01-amd64-disc1.iso
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/201105/

The beef about this one is above.

.................................................. ..
.................................................. ..

Download-2 - - 1 GB – took over 12 HOURS:
FreeBSD-9.0-CURRENT-201105-amd64-dvd1.iso
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/201105/

This time I try to install in VirtualBox and it stopped on the first page:


[thread pid 0 tid 100000]
Stopped at acpi_install_wakeup_handler+0xd9: movq %r15,0x88(%r12)
db>


... and on a real-partitions on a fresh HDD, after the install I get:


Unable to find device node for /dev.ad4s1b in /dev!
The creation of filesystem will be aborted.


.................................................. ..
.................................................. ..

Finally found somewhere else:
Download-3 - - 653 MB – in about 20 minutes
FreeBSD-9.0-CURRENT-201105-amd64-dvd1.iso
http://ftp2.freebsd.org/mirror/FreeB...pshots/201105/

This is another DVD of the same versions and date. Check these web sites and you see they are of difference size if someone did not change things already. 1-GB vs 653MB and they both are suppose to be the same version. Is this normal or is Beastie right... pure desperation with lost of concentration. It took near exact 12 hours for a 1-GB download as I sleep and I got this one else where in under 30 minutes ... Hummm, even Microsoft don't get that busy ??? .. Anyway, this is what I got for my last few, brand new, DVD's and I am not happy.


Quote:
I install 9 about a month ago on an extra machine and did not encounter this issue. And as I reacall it defaulted to UFS for myself.
Thanks roddierod, now I see the light. I bet you gave the whole HDD to the OS. Why would you not. Ninety percent of ALL users do and it is the dream of any OS writer, even me if I was one. I think I can get it to work or just wait until release. It could be my so-called Gigabyte-890-GPA motherboard jack-up BIOS's... Hardware choose MS$ above any. Either that or something got changes... Look at the size mix-up below


Anyway, at boot it boot to this, again:


Enter full pathname of shell or RETURN for /bin/sh:

That to singe-user-mode on it's own.

After that it goes here every time but in difference order and than quit. Keyboad is gone and I have to pull-the-plug:

SMP: AP CPU #1 LAUNCHED!
SMP: AP CPU #2 LAUNCHED!
SMP: AP CPU #3 LAUNCHED!


... and it destroyed the FAT-32 partition that was 2nd on the disk and I only made slices for up to 30GB on the 40GB UFS partition.

.................................
.................................

OK, This time I gave the install a COMPLETELY unformatted HDD, and here is what it looks like if you accept the GUIDE. Notice it gave me two boots ...

Quote:
And BTW to sharris, ZFS people tell you "DO NOT USE HARDWARE RAID!"
Randux, 2 boots for the price of one... This should make you believe your own story


ada0 .. 74 GB .. GPT

ada0p1 ... 64 kb ... freebsd-boot
ada0p2 .... 5 GB ... freebsd-ufs
ada0p3 .. 5.0 GB ... freebsd-ufs
ada0p4 .. 5.0 GB ... freebsd-ufs
ada0p5 .. 5.0 GB ... freebsd-ufs
ada0p6 ... 20 GB ... freebsd-ufs
ada0p7 ... 64 GB ... freebsd-boot
ada0p8 ... 32 GB ... freebsd-ufs .. /
ada0p9 .. 1.7 GB ... freebsd-swap



Bottom line, at release time if Partition-Commander show me a red ring at the top of the long cylinder image and all of my other PRIMARIES are gone and only BSD remain, FreeBSD-9.0 +++ is HISTORY! Even you want to be KING. Look at the MAC, he has his own agriculture to rule over. Every OS writer knows Windows-8 to Windows-9 is up to something. They all are running wild because they know there is only room for two real WINNERS. I forgot what's it call but I read about something like this a few years back, where consumers will no longer owns their machines. It will be owned by a single operating system on tailored Hardware ... making hacking for ownership and privacy, impossible. It will only share you and yours with Face-Book, tweeter and the LAW for your own protection. How lovely... and to boot you still have vBOX ... One ruling OS over many (pee-ons) is the plan.

I hope I'm just speculating but if it turns true, I got my plan-2. When the day come, "it works for you and not for him", that's is D-END of operation snow-ball.

Btw: Finding things like this don't turn me on but it keeps me on my toes because this could destroys all of my/our hard work and enthusiasm all in a day. Just like it did for DOS, AT, XT, i386, including Windows-98. They all got kick to the curb, face down, or was it belly-up ... heehee

.. and it's nothing but the way of Todays Technology.

I tried hard. You do the math, I'll just wait!

Last edited by sharris; 7th July 2011 at 11:25 PM. Reason: Making sure version are in-order.
Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011
richardpl richardpl is offline
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 284
Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Sorry but I do not understand single thing you are posting.

I use CURRENT all the time, but I do not reinstall CURRENT from install disk all the time.

The sysinstaller is probably broken because it does not use gpart at all, you can manage partitions with gpart, do not use other tools.

You can install boot code to mbr/slice with gpart.

New installer is not yet complete.

To correctly install CURRENT you should probably use gpart in fixit shell.

You can post "flames" on @current mailing list, posting it on this forums is like talking to wall.
Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

If you don't understand it, don't worry about it. Somebody will.

If it works for you, be happy. And don't try to tag this thread as flame. The word itself is only design to start a flame war and to give me a rep and you know it. This been days of 24/7's trying hard to make the new freebsd installer work as I laugh to keep myself from crying. No one would take my comments personal unless it's all true. Just look at the error messages. I can't make up something that was just invented for tomorrow. Everything in color is all the proof anyone would ever need. I'm sure not everyone have had the same issues when using PORT and hacks. I don't know how to do all of that and should not have too.

How about the people who download the ISO. That's what this thread is all about. One person had tons of issues ... That means "one million users too many". I post in hope give the FreeBSD developers a clue of what should be fixed. I did not send in a resume to the PR to be at the bottom of the stack. They have to find it here. The choices are, they find it, someone here warn them or simply use your time to tag people like me to be banned, kicked to the curb, face-down to keep it on the hush-hush. Heehee

This the 2nd time I had to explain my intentions with all the facts hanging right over your head. I am not like anyone here so don't expect me to be. I tell the story my way, not your way.

By the way, Thanks to the next poster ... WoW J65nko, vermaden will be my way. I'll get on it today. But I'm still glad I posted so FreeBSD can figure out what we see out here.

I do my best for FreeBSD FOREVER, regardless of what I say. It's a love thing

Last edited by sharris; 7th July 2011 at 11:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 7th July 2011
J65nko J65nko is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Budel - the Netherlands
Posts: 3,254
Thanked 182 Times in 149 Posts
Default

If you feel comfortable and/knowledgeable enough you can easily install FreeBSD without the IMHO terrrible sysinstall. For example see HOWTO: Modern FreeBSD Install (vermaden way)
__________________
You don't need to be a genius to debug a pf.conf firewall ruleset, you just need the guts to run tcpdump
Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I finally got it installed but I still see problems. That damage HDD red-ring indicator is still at the top of the cyc image among the few other thing. It keep takeing over the other partitons but that could be something I'm not doing right. Who knows.

Good luck

Last edited by sharris; 8th July 2011 at 03:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old 8th July 2011
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

If you want ZFS, skip sysinstall entirely.

Either use the bsdinstall-based CDs, or the PC-BSD CD. Those both support ZFS installs (and gmirror installs, and anything you can do with [man=8]gpart[/man]).

The bsdinstall CDs are really nice, as the installer is a LiveCD with several opportunities to "do it yourself". Drop to a shell, use gpart to configure the disk, create the filesystems, mount them to wherever it needs them (it tells you), then restart the installer and away it goes.

The disk partitioner is also much nicer in bsdinstall.

You can get the bsdinstall CDs here.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

If my extended comment boar someone out there, just SPEED-READ or turn the page from USA to your home town.

PRIMARY-1 ... Windows trickery *TRY* to enforce this on me, but did on most but MS was still was smart enough to keep Windows in a single partition. Just like programming tools. Is it C++, Perl, PHP or what ... You use the one that is tailored for the job. Windows did the best job as a desktop up to XP. Now it's a KDE/EXPLORER operating system ONLY. So it's DIE with vista ++.

PRIMARY-2 .. FreeBSD is happy .. he got SLICES ... You can get up to {8} PARTITIONS under its own UNIVERSE, and you can throw any possible clown in jail to help ensure your system is secure ... Windows or LINUX cannot do this. Patrick Henry meant to say: Give me my choice of which UNIVERSE I want or give me LINUX.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html


PRIMARY-3 .. PcBSD is happy .. but with PcBSD-9.0 he got gPart issues big-time. This is why I think I seen the light already. Anyway, PcBSD play with LABELS. Maybe that's a ZFS thing, I don't know. Here's something I found about REAL BSD labels:

http://www.wonkity.com/~wblock/docs/html/ahci.html


EXTENDED-4.. Since Linux is weaker than BSD ... It's because must have a separate PARTITION for swap and more if he wants better security. The good thing is he can waste PARTITION inside EXTENDED where you own up to 15 to 29 logical partition depending on OS used. But tthe OS really don't call the shots if you know what your doing with standard MBR. Problem is the new FreeBSD installer seems to be stepping on some toes. Maybe this links can help explain some of my concerns:

http://wiki.minix3.org/en/UsersGuide/DiskPartitions



Quote:
The bsdinstall CDs are really nice, as the installer is a LiveCD with several opportunities to "do it yourself". Drop to a shell, ...
I like the old FreeBSD installer. I don't know why the world was wining about it. It took me a long time to get use to it but I only got to know the simple standard install, the rest was too far over my head until NOW. Now I see it had it all, all along, but the new LIVE-CD can be a plus if it play ball properly, with-out the HACKING. But I'll do it if I have to.

Quote:
... use gpart to configure the disk, create the filesystems, mount them to wherever it needs them (it tells you), then restart the installer and away it goes.
I use to use *Partition Commander* from my Windows world for everything until I learn that cfdisk under ARCH or Fedora was better. I also used gPART live-cd but you could not make UFS partitions with-out a lot of buggy libraries, so I dump it... it seem that FBSD accepted it. Btw, I don't plan to use ZFS other than to experiment with it someday. Oko told the real story on this one and that something far to deep from the simple things I plan to do. That's a phoenix thing.

gpart is the problem I think. The new FreeBSD installer seem to waste three PRIMARY partitions *OR* at lease two FOR SURE ... I get a BOOT partition, a SWAP partition and the standard UFS partition for root, usrs and such.

The reason I know is that I watch and I check. After the install I use *Partition Commander* to view the disk. *Partition Commander* knows that this is not a common FreeBSD-UFS partition and that is why it marks the partition as DEFECTED.

Now should I say, all is well... NO, because I think the new installer has actually stole all three of my PRIMARY partitions, trying to do things the LINUX way "BUT" it can't live on EXTENDED where partitions are plentiful so now the user suffers.

Quote:
The disk partitioner is also much nicer in bsdinstall. You can get the bsdinstall CDs here.
I'm downloading it now! But I hope this not the same installer for FBSD-9.0 If it is, even you missed all the points I been trying to make. But don't feel bad ... nobody understand.


Anyway, it don't matter because I will be hacking it soon until that is taken away, and if so, I'll write my own BSD. I always wanted to piece things together from places like the link you posted. That is the only way to deal with BSD. As far a a desktop, PcBSD may be the winner once they cut down on memory usages in 9.0 and solve the gPart issue.

Hope you know I appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks phoenix

BTW, I hate writing because I don't know how to talk and I have no time to learn how-to present myself. I rather code and I know a lots of people that will tell you the same. But here I need someone to know what the issue is, but if you dedicated the disk your whole computing life, you will never know.
Reply With Quote
Old 9th July 2011
sharris sharris is offline
Package Pilot
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 146
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Hey, I got the live-cd. I'm going to take all the suggestions given here and learn to hack it. After waiting a whole year for FreeBSD-9.0 it never cross my mind that it could turn out like the GNOME-3 thing did. vermaden makes it seem so easy so I should have something up and running in a few days even if I have to drop back to 8.2, I'll still use it. I should have been there a long time ago. Kind of funny, you guys did not know what I was talking about and I did not know what you guys was hinting at...

Thanks again

PS:
I have one question, is Gparted, FreeBSD gpart(8) and GNU parted the same thing? I checked a google but it never tells me and difference so I take for granted freeBSD has a build in GNU parted, but I also thought FreeBSD did not like GNU license. This is what I tried and it don't make UFS partitions that's why I dump it for cfdisk. It works for ALL formats, not just LINUX like Windows works for Windows only for instance. And I don't think whatever FreeBSD use is going out of its way either.

http://www.gnu.org/software/parted/index.shtml

Last edited by sharris; 9th July 2011 at 09:11 AM. Reason: PS:
Reply With Quote
Old 12th July 2011
phoenix's Avatar
phoenix phoenix is offline
Risen from the ashes
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 699
Thanked 90 Times in 81 Posts
Default

No. GPartEd is a Linux-based GUI LiveCD partition manager thingy that uses GNU parted to do the actual partitioning.

gpart is the FreeBSD command-line tool for partitioning disks.

No relation whatsoever between them, although they do similar tasks.
__________________
Freddie

Help for FreeBSD: Handbook, FAQ, man pages, mailing lists.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the command to control more than one processor? bmk1st OpenBSD General 1 2nd February 2010 01:33 PM
Fan control in OpenBSD Angevin OpenBSD General 6 20th November 2009 03:06 AM
NetBSD installer cannot find hard drive ionflux NetBSD Installation and Upgrading 4 14th September 2009 03:52 PM
booting vista installer dvd bsdnewbie999 Other OS 9 15th October 2008 06:16 PM
mandatory access control (MAC) buba OpenBSD Security 3 22nd May 2008 07:25 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick