<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/19/2012 12:18, Arthur wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50083366.4090004@neiu.edu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 07/19/2012 9:24 AM, Kris Moore wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:500818B1.4020605@pcbsd.org" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/19/2012 10:12, Arthur wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:500815B0.7080905@neiu.edu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Kris,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Arthur<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Right-click to open an xterm, and run "top" is anything using up
CPU?</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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'.<br>
<br>
Other than that, install went fine with SU+J, detected monitor and
on-board Intel VGA just fine. Looks great so far!<br>
<br>
cheers,<br>
Arthur<br>
</blockquote>
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. <br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kris Moore
PC-BSD Software
iXsystems</pre>
</body>
</html>