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

Lars Engels lars.engels at 0x20.net
Fri Jul 20 03:36:58 PDT 2012


On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:52:45AM -0500, 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.

You could try to "kill -INFO" the pkg_add process a few times and see if
it is still doing something. But I can't tell if you can actually see
the output. It would appear on pkg_add's controlling terminal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20120720/7bb96827/attachment.bin>


More information about the Testing mailing list