Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

nanobsd: Increase default media size
AbandonedPublic

Authored by jlduran on Sun, Nov 17, 12:09 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 21, 11:10 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 20, 8:06 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 19, 9:57 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Mon, Nov 18, 10:10 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 17, 7:07 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 17, 6:46 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sun, Nov 17, 2:04 PM
Subscribers
None

Details

Reviewers
emaste
imp
Summary

Increase the NANO_MEDIASIZE to ~7.6GiB (~8GB, 16,000,000 * 512B) in
order to accommodate a default build (with no configuration options).

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 60637
Build 57521: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

jlduran created this revision.

@imp expressed the possibility of implementing options similar to the ones in D43232 (https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/pull/964#issuecomment-1872262987). While this is evidently an interesting option, I have opted to propose just a "bump" to the minimum default size. Default meaning having no *_OPTIONS.
At some point this will be inevitable, currently the command sh nanobsd.sh with no custom configuration, fails. Presumably someone creating a customized image would have options set accordingly. More importantly, it is likely that the NANO_MEDIASIZE is set to match the size of the physical card. Industrial cards with 8GB or more seem to be the norm, after a little market research.
At any rate, this is just a suggestion, and I will gladly implement the maintainer's recommendations. What is paramount for me would be to fix sh nanobsd.sh before asking doc for a review of D47634.

I kinda think we should ditch this size altogether and nake minimal images by default. 8g is too big, imho, for a default that uses only 1/8 of that. Of we just use growfs and makefs/mkimg, we'll be good

OK, I'll re-submit following that approach.

I've wanted for years to have nanobsd not need root at all...

In D47643#1086284, @imp wrote:

I've wanted for years to have nanobsd not need root at all...

Ah yes, I would like that now for OCI containers as well.