[PC-BSD Testing] 9.1-BETA1 now available!
kris at pcbsd.org
Thu Jul 19 10:35:56 PDT 2012
On 07/19/2012 12:52, Arthur wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 11:41 AM, Kris Moore wrote:
>> On 07/19/2012 12:18, Arthur wrote:
>>> On 07/19/2012 9:24 AM, Kris Moore wrote:
>>>> On 07/19/2012 10:12, Arthur wrote:
>>>>> I'm currently trying to install the new beta on x86 but it seems
>>>>> to be stuck on KDE installation. Currently, it's stuck on
>>>>> "Installing Meta-Package: KDE" (18%) and "Installing package:
>>>>> kde-workspace-4.8.4" (12%). It's been stuck on this percentage for
>>>>> about 30 minutes now. HD light is solid but there is no DVD
>>>>> activity. Machine is not locked up or anything.
>>>> Right-click to open an xterm, and run "top" is anything using up CPU?
>>> It's showing pkg_add as the highest CPU using process but at around
>>> 1%+/-. That's nothing. However, I think I have found the problem.
>>> I'm using my usual abuse box (Dell Optiplex 960, 4GB RAM, Core 2 Duo
>>> 3.3GHz) and I am noticing that when I choose to install by just
>>> using the "Next" buttons, it defaults to ZFS when partitioning the
>>> drive. So I restarted the install and did and Advanced install when
>>> it came to the HD and chose SU+J. When I used this option,
>>> installation completed in around 11 minutes and it did not hang at
>>> the previous place. So in this case, I am pointing the finger
>>> squarely at ZFS.
>>> I don't know how strongly committed you guys are committed to the
>>> model of if RAM => 4GB use ZFS else if RAM < 4GB use SU+J, but it's
>>> just my humblest of opinions to suggest defaulting to UFS instead of
>>> ZFS even if a system has 4GB or more. Otherwise, maybe give some
>>> kind of option to choose one or the other during that portion of the
>>> install and explain the difference. To me, ZFS should be left to the
>>> realm of the uber power users or those who'd want to dig around in
>>> the Advanced menu options and choose it specifically. It could be
>>> that this is just a one-off event that happened to me but some other
>>> user installing 9.1 might encounter this and say "WTF?" and think
>>> it's hung up on something and scrap the install not knowing ZFS was
>>> to blame. Just sayin'.
>>> Other than that, install went fine with SU+J, detected monitor and
>>> on-board Intel VGA just fine. Looks great so far!
>> I'd be curious how long it took to finish with ZFS in your case, of
>> it it just hung. I do all my installs here with ZFS, and it only
>> takes 10-15 minutes usually.
> Me too. Any way to add some kind of timer stating it took "xx:xx"
> minutes to complete the install? I can run the installer with ZFS and
> let it go overnight to see if it finishes.
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
I'm doing x64 on everything, x32 is iffy with ZFS :)
I'll look into a timestamp, should be doable.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Testing