6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
While trying to PXE install a 6.5 machine I was hit with this failure:

 Installing bsd          100% |**************************| 15163 KB    00:00    
 Installing bsd.mp       100% |**************************| 15248 KB    00:00    
 Installing bsd.rd       100% |**************************|  9984 KB    00:00    
 Installing base65.tgz    99% |************************* |   189 MB    00:00 ETAtar: Unable to remove directory ./var/tmp: Device busy
 Installing base65.tgz   100% |**************************|   190 MB    00:14    
 Installation of base65.tgz failed. Continue anyway? [no] no

which I suspect is related to this:

 /               1G
 swap            4G-16G 10%
 /tmp            2G
 /usr            4G
 /usr/local      2-6G 10%
 /var            10-20G 20%
 /var/tmp        10-20G 15%
 /var/log        20-40G 30%
 /u              1G-*

I've never run into this until today, when I tried to carve out an explicit
/var/tmp.  Autopartitioning be able to handle /var/tmp, no?

--lyndon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Nick Holland
On 4/29/19 6:09 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

> While trying to PXE install a 6.5 machine I was hit with this failure:
>
>  Installing bsd          100% |**************************| 15163 KB    00:00    
>  Installing bsd.mp       100% |**************************| 15248 KB    00:00    
>  Installing bsd.rd       100% |**************************|  9984 KB    00:00    
>  Installing base65.tgz    99% |************************* |   189 MB    00:00 ETAtar: Unable to remove directory ./var/tmp: Device busy
>  Installing base65.tgz   100% |**************************|   190 MB    00:14    
>  Installation of base65.tgz failed. Continue anyway? [no] no
>
> which I suspect is related to this:
>
>  /               1G
>  swap            4G-16G 10%
>  /tmp            2G
>  /usr            4G
>  /usr/local      2-6G 10%
>  /var            10-20G 20%
>  /var/tmp        10-20G 15%
>  /var/log        20-40G 30%
>  /u              1G-*

yeah.

> I've never run into this until today, when I tried to carve out an explicit
> /var/tmp.  Autopartitioning be able to handle /var/tmp, no?

normally, /var/tmp is a symlink to /tmp.
It can't make the link.  No surprise.
Answer "Yes" to the "Continue anyway?" prompt, and all will be fine, I
believe.

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Craig Skinner-3
On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:18:04 -0400 Nick Holland wrote:
> normally, /var/tmp is a symlink to /tmp.
> It can't make the link. No surprise.

Since 5.7: http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/5-7-installer-tar-Unable-to-remove-directory-td277040.html

Cheers,
--
Craig Skinner | http://linkd.in/yGqkv7

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
Nick Holland writes:

> normally, /var/tmp is a symlink to /tmp.
> It can't make the link.  No surprise.
> Answer "Yes" to the "Continue anyway?" prompt, and all will be fine, I
> believe.

Sadly, no :-(

But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
a tiny bit of hackery.

--lyndon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
> Sadly, no :-(
>
> But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
> a tiny bit of hackery.

Sadly, no :-(

What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come
up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp.  But MFS /tmp really
needs help in the system boot scripts.

The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and
we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly.

--lyndon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Paul de Weerd
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
| > Sadly, no :-(
| >
| > But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
| > a tiny bit of hackery.
|
| Sadly, no :-(
|
| What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come
| up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp.  But MFS /tmp really
| needs help in the system boot scripts.

Why?  I've been running with MFS /tmp for *years* on several machines.

This indeed required some changes when /var/tmp was changed into a
symlink to /tmp, but that was really no issue at all.

There's very little difference between a /tmp on disk and a /tmp in
RAM (through mfs): both get mounted during boot at the same time.

[weerd@pom] $ grep /tmp /etc/fstab
swap /tmp mfs rw,nodev,noatime,async,nosuid,-s=8388608
[weerd@pom] $ df -h /tmp
Filesystem     Size    Used   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
mfs:12547      3.9G    227M    3.5G     6%    /tmp

| The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and
| we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly.

Having /var/tmp not overwhelm /var is accomplished by having /var/tmp
symlink to /tmp (assuming /var and /tmp are on separate filesystems).
If you need more room in /var/tmp then you want to assign to your MFS
/tmp, then you need a different solution - but that's probably
something that can also be solved in a different way (don't use
/var/tmp for temporary storage, but another (dedicated) location for
whatever needs to write so much there).

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
                 http://www.weirdnet.nl/                 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Theo de Raadt-2
Paul de Weerd <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 01:29:47PM -0700, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> | > Sadly, no :-(
> | >
> | > But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
> | > a tiny bit of hackery.
> |
> | Sadly, no :-(
> |
> | What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come
> | up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp.  But MFS /tmp really
> | needs help in the system boot scripts.
>
> Why?  I've been running with MFS /tmp for *years* on several machines.
>
> This indeed required some changes when /var/tmp was changed into a
> symlink to /tmp, but that was really no issue at all.
>
> There's very little difference between a /tmp on disk and a /tmp in
> RAM (through mfs): both get mounted during boot at the same time.
>
> [weerd@pom] $ grep /tmp /etc/fstab
> swap /tmp mfs rw,nodev,noatime,async,nosuid,-s=8388608
> [weerd@pom] $ df -h /tmp
> Filesystem     Size    Used   Avail Capacity  Mounted on
> mfs:12547      3.9G    227M    3.5G     6%    /tmp
>
> | The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and
> | we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly.
>
> Having /var/tmp not overwhelm /var is accomplished by having /var/tmp
> symlink to /tmp (assuming /var and /tmp are on separate filesystems).
> If you need more room in /var/tmp then you want to assign to your MFS
> /tmp, then you need a different solution - but that's probably
> something that can also be solved in a different way (don't use
> /var/tmp for temporary storage, but another (dedicated) location for
> whatever needs to write so much there).


What hasn't been mentioned is why /var/tmp was made into a symbolic
link to /tmp.

Is your /var/tmp a seperate filesystem?

Can I have a temporary account to demonstrate the consequences of
filling /var?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
On 2019-04-30, Lyndon Nerenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Sadly, no :-(
>>
>> But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime and
>> a tiny bit of hackery.
>
> Sadly, no :-(
>
> What I was aiming for was to have the newly installed machines come
> up with a 2GB MFS /tmp and a ~20GB /var/tmp.  But MFS /tmp really
> needs help in the system boot scripts.
>
> The critical part for us is that /var/tmp not overwhelm /var, and
> we can get that with the current scheme by sizing /tmp accordingly.
>
> --lyndon
>
>

My "workaround" when I've run into this during upgrades has been
to ditch the MFS /tmp and mount my previous /var/tmp partition there
instead.

If MFS was actually fast then doing this would make me sad, but it
isn't really, and sd0 is often on SSD these days...


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 6.5 auto_install fails due to custom /var/tmp?

Craig Skinner-3
In reply to this post by Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:29:47 -0700 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> > But I should be able to accomplish what I need using rc.firsttime
> > and a tiny bit of hackery.  
>
> Sadly, no :-(

How about partition as /var/temp/ & autoinstall Lyndon?

Then in rc.firsttime:-
*) umount /var/temp/
*) check /var/tmp is a symlink &&
  *) rm it
  *) mv /var/temp /var/tmp
  *) chmod/own /var/tmp as req'd
  *) mount /var/tmp

Cheers,
--
Craig Skinner | http://linkd.in/yGqkv7