[PC-BSD Testing] 9.1-BETA1 now available!

Arthur A-Koziol at neiu.edu
Thu Jul 19 10:53:31 PDT 2012


On 07/19/2012 12:35 PM, Kris Moore wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>> Kris,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arthur
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Arthur
>>> 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.
>>
>> Arthur
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Testing mailing list
>> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
>> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing
>>      
>
> I'm doing x64 on everything, x32 is iffy with ZFS :)
>
> I'll look into a timestamp, should be doable. 

Ah, I figured as much. Well, due to the limits of x86 and how it handles 
the 4GB limit, realistically 2-2.6GB is actually available for use to 
the OS while the remainder is for address space. That being said, x86 
may "see" 4GB installed via BIOS call and satisfy the 4GB minimum (on 
paper)  and proceed with ZFS but ultimately not yield good performance 
because the reality is the OS can't truly use all of the 4GB. It's a bit 
of a paradox. Might it not be better to disable the use of ZFS on x86 
altogether?

Arthur
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20120719/2ddb7fc1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Testing mailing list