headers
Administrador do sistema de email | 10 Jan 2005 12:19
Picon

problema encontrado em mensagem enviada "impressao!!"


Atencao: netbsd-docs <at> netbsd.org

Um problema foi encontrado em uma mensagem de Email que acabou de
ser enviada por voce. 
Este scanner de Email a interceptou e impediu a mensagem de chegar
no seu destino.

O problema foi reportado como sendo: 

Disallowed double-barrelled attachment filename (zerado.rtf.bat) - potential virus

Por favor contate o suporte do seu provedor com quaisquer duvidas sobre
esta politica.

Sua mensagem foi enviada com o seguinte envelope:

REMETENTE:    netbsd-docs <at> netbsd.org
DESTINATARIO: siqueira <at> resilminas.com.br 

... e com o seguinte cabecalho:

---
MAILFROM: netbsd-docs <at> netbsd.org
Received: from unknown (HELO resilminas.com.br) (200.158.191.225)
  by gcresilminas.resilminas.com.br with SMTP; 10 Jan 2005 11:19:22 -0000
From: netbsd-docs <at> netbsd.org
To: siqueira <at> resilminas.com.br
Subject: impressao!!
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:19:21 -0200
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wang Jun | 14 Jan 2005 07:59
Picon
Gravatar

I'd like to help with translation of Chinese!

Hi,

I'd like to help with translations of Simplified Chinese, What and how
should I do? 

Is there already a Chinese translation team?

Thanks!

Regards,
Wang Jun

--

-- 
Wang Jun <at>  Atmos. Dep. of NJU. China. 
GNU is Not Unix, BSD is Powerful,
Ada is Beautiful, Nju is Graceful.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lucia Gomes | 14 Jan 2005 23:33
Picon
Favicon

listagem de e-mails

Mais Emails, venda online de listas de email, fazemos mala direta e 
propaganda de sua empresa ou negócio para milhões de emails. Temos listas
de email Mala Direta, Mala-Direta, Cadastro de Emails, Lista de Emails,
Mailing List, Milhões de Emails, Programas de Envio de Email, Email
Bombers, Extratores de Email, Listas Segmentadas de Email, Emails
Segmentados, Emails em Massa, E-mails

http://www.estacion.de/maladireta

Temos listas de email Mala Direta, Mala-Direta, Cadastro de Emails, Lista
de Emails, Mailing List, Milhões de Emails, Programas de Envio de Email,
Email Bombers, Extratores de Email, Listas Segmentadas de Email, Emails
Segmentados, Emails em Massa, E-mails

http://www.estacion.de/maladireta
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Geert Hendrickx | 17 Jan 2005 23:07
Picon

Re: File Size Limitations

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 04:07:47PM -0500, Sridhar Ayengar wrote:
> Hi.  I haven't been able to find a non-confusing source for this
> information, so I'm sorry to be asking a question that's probably been
> asked before.
> 
> Is there a difference in maximum file size between UFS and UFS2?  I
> have a RAID array (1080GB capacity) onto which I will need to dump
> multiple 200GB files.  Will I be ok?

I also find there is very limited documentation on the filesystems
included in NetBSD.  About UFSv2 the docs only mention that "among other
enhancements, it is better suited for filesystems larger than 1 TB".
What does that mean, better suited?  And what is the difference then
between UFS v1 and v2 on my 10 Gb disk?  

And LFS is *completely* undocumented...  The design seems good, but it
is "rumoured" that the current implementation is not very stable.  

So maybe it's a good idea to create a section about filesystems (and the
differences between them, and their options, and what to use for which
purpose, etc) in the NetBSD guide...?  

GH

--

-- 
:wq
Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |
headers
Wouter Klouwen | 18 Jan 2005 00:15

Re: File Size Limitations

Geert Hendrickx(geert.hendrickx <at> ua.ac.be) said 2005.01.17 23:07:06 +0000:
> And LFS is *completely* undocumented...  The design seems good, but it
> is "rumoured" that the current implementation is not very stable.  

http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/lfs.html

It is very out of date though. I'm beginning to wonder whether LFS has been
abandoned.

> GH
	--Wouter
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Perry E. Metzger | 18 Jan 2005 04:08
Gravatar

Re: File Size Limitations


"Geert Hendrickx" <geert.hendrickx <at> ua.ac.be> writes:
> I also find there is very limited documentation on the filesystems
> included in NetBSD.  About UFSv2 the docs only mention that "among other
> enhancements, it is better suited for filesystems larger than 1 TB".
> What does that mean, better suited?

It uses 64 bit block numbers instead of 32 bit ones. Since blocks are
512 bits, well, you can see why 2TB becomes a hard limit.

> And what is the difference then
> between UFS v1 and v2 on my 10 Gb disk?  

You have no reason to bother with v2 if you aren't dealing with things
in the TB range.

.pm
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Jeremy C. Reed | 18 Jan 2005 08:43

need docs on verified exec

Quick google searches did not turn up any NetBSD documentation about
verified exec.

I did find
http://www.users.on.net/~blymn/veriexec/
http://www.users.on.net/~blymn/veriexec/veriexec_announce.html
http://www.linux.org.au/conf/2004/eventrecord/LCA2004-cd/papers/18-brett-lymn-veriexec.html

http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?veriexecctl++NetBSD-2.0
http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?verifiedexec++NetBSD-2.0
(but man pages don't reference each other)

Brett: can anyone of your docs be reused/republished at the NetBSD site?

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
	  	 	 http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Geert Hendrickx | 18 Jan 2005 13:27
Picon

Re: File Size Limitations

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:21PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> "Geert Hendrickx" <geert.hendrickx <at> ua.ac.be> writes:
> > I also find there is very limited documentation on the filesystems
> > included in NetBSD.  About UFSv2 the docs only mention that "among other
> > enhancements, it is better suited for filesystems larger than 1 TB".
> > What does that mean, better suited?
> 
> It uses 64 bit block numbers instead of 32 bit ones. Since blocks are
> 512 bits, well, you can see why 2TB becomes a hard limit.
> 
> > And what is the difference then
> > between UFS v1 and v2 on my 10 Gb disk?  
> 
> You have no reason to bother with v2 if you aren't dealing with things
> in the TB range.

Can you confirm that for <2TB filesystems, UFS 1 vs 2 doesn't make ANY
difference?  In that case, why can't the installer (or newfs) choose the
appropriate one by default?  

GH

--

-- 
:wq
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Geert Hendrickx | 18 Jan 2005 13:55
Picon

Re: File Size Limitations

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:21PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> "Geert Hendrickx" <geert.hendrickx <at> ua.ac.be> writes:
> > I also find there is very limited documentation on the filesystems
> > included in NetBSD.  About UFSv2 the docs only mention that "among other
> > enhancements, it is better suited for filesystems larger than 1 TB".
> > What does that mean, better suited?
> 
> It uses 64 bit block numbers instead of 32 bit ones. Since blocks are
> 512 bits, well, you can see why 2TB becomes a hard limit.
> 
> > And what is the difference then
> > between UFS v1 and v2 on my 10 Gb disk?  
> 
> You have no reason to bother with v2 if you aren't dealing with things
> in the TB range.

What I've understood from various FreeBSD docs and mailing lists, is
that UFS v2 also supports snapshots (useful for creating backups of a
mounted disk), background fsck, ...  

So there ARE improvements in functionality (which also hold for <2TB
filesystems), so I'd think it IS worth documenting them.  

Just my 0.02 ...  

GH

--

-- 
:wq
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Juergen Hannken-Illjes | 18 Jan 2005 14:39
Picon
Picon
Favicon

Re: File Size Limitations

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:55:38PM +0100, Geert Hendrickx wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:08:21PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> > 
> > "Geert Hendrickx" <geert.hendrickx <at> ua.ac.be> writes:
> > > I also find there is very limited documentation on the filesystems
> > > included in NetBSD.  About UFSv2 the docs only mention that "among other
> > > enhancements, it is better suited for filesystems larger than 1 TB".
> > > What does that mean, better suited?
> > 
> > It uses 64 bit block numbers instead of 32 bit ones. Since blocks are
> > 512 bits, well, you can see why 2TB becomes a hard limit.
> > 
> > > And what is the difference then
> > > between UFS v1 and v2 on my 10 Gb disk?  
> > 
> > You have no reason to bother with v2 if you aren't dealing with things
> > in the TB range.
> 
> What I've understood from various FreeBSD docs and mailing lists, is
> that UFS v2 also supports snapshots (useful for creating backups of a
> mounted disk), background fsck, ...  

Snapshots are supported by both UFSv1 and UFSv2.

> So there ARE improvements in functionality (which also hold for <2TB
> filesystems), so I'd think it IS worth documenting them.  
> 
> Just my 0.02 ...  

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane