Man pages are gold. As a quick gpart usage reference for disk managing you can take a look here too

-> man pages are golden Can't argue with that, freebsd man page quality is top notch

Just basic stuff, like formatting USBs from the terminal, mounting new disks etc.

So you're essentially using freebsd as a glorified disk reader and writer program?

Wait, there's util-linux on freebsd? You're kidding right? Aren't they tied to Linux kernel specifics?

u unable to read & understand ?

u unable to read & understand ?

I know the package exists, I was stating my disbelief about how it can even exist on freebsd u unable to understand context?

So you're essentially using freebsd as a glorified disk reader and writer program?

Hahah I do many more things with it, just could not figure out stuff on this topic as it is very different

I know the package exists, I was stating my disbelief about how it can even exist on freebsd u unable to understand context?

Those are not the same packages. Those are built for freebsd.

I know the package exists, I was stating my disbelief about how it can even exist on freebsd u unable to understand context?

my bad , it's easier to get when it's comes out of mouth , instead of text XD

also it was a genuine question from his side , as a new comer

Hi! Has anyone "Packet Traveling" diagram of sorts for BSD?

Those are not the same packages. Those are built for freebsd.

No that's not what I meant util-linux was made for Linux and is used by most of the Linux's, so one would assume they weren't exactly portable to other Unixes What I mean was how can you take the source code of util-linux and compile it in freebsd without problems?

Where is FreeBSD stores NDP cache? In wich structure? Is it right guess that NDP injects records into it throught route socket?

Thanks for noticing (:

Added!

Thanks :)

Guys, please help me with this: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/i-lost-bootcode-in-bsd-slice-a-lot-help-me-found-out-why.82277/

jeez

it's like reading the mail archive from early 00's

why do you need "dualboot" at all

choose your primary OS, boot the other in a VM

bet your CPU is VT-x capable (AMD-V if you like)

MBR, slices.... jeez, it's like you're preparing to PhD in computer history

the whole story is purely academic

when MBR was everywhere there was no zfs at all

bet boot0cfg has no idea about it

Windows is pretty capable o booting from GPT

(I'm not even talking or mentioning UEFI, just the partitioning scheme that is at least 15 years in its maturity)

boot into w10, launch FreeBSD in a Hyper-V, or boot FreeBSD, launch W10 in bhyve

forget the nightmare of MBR and dualbooting

For your information, the laptop is over 10 years old, UEFI was not supported

have both OSes booted at the same time

yeah, right

but I already stated I'm not mentioning UEFI

and as you can see from the specs, using VMs in such limited resource is almost impossible, especially Windows

waht ... windows 10 / vmware w/ BSD's & Linux no problem

& when the install ask where ya want your boot loader »> MBR

It's two cores T2100 @2GHz, 4G RAM, I can only imagine using VM in a DE.

not that bad

& when the install ask where ya want your boot loader »> MBR

Isn't gpart bootcode -b /boot/boot0 ada0 doing this?

idk

& when the install ask where ya want your boot loader »> MBR

And as I recall FreeBSD installer won't ask you this?

installing 13.x with zfs on 4 gigs of RAM.... ooookay

on /sda

installing 13.x with zfs on 4 gigs of RAM.... ooookay

I am talking about using VMs in DE. I know it's pretty OK to use 13.0 desktop, I am running it right now.

I dont quite get the passage "VMs in DE"

DE or not DE, VMs don't care

T2100 doesn't have EPT/UG, so no bhyve

this leaves you probably with W7 and VMWare of some sort

I dont quite get the passage "VMs in DE"

You suggested to run VMs instead of dual boot. I am saying that using VMs in a desktop environment on my machine would be hard given my laptop spec.

anything will be hard on this antique

Windows 10 itself might require 2G+ RAM to run smoothly

well, as the guys already pointed out, you're making it even more difficult

in a conventional setup, a would be the root partition, and b - swap

all the code is legacy, all the guys who knew the tricks of having swap and root swapped - in nursing homes

repartition the BSD slice, maby the things will change

I'm the guy from this legacy era, but I was never using root on b and swap on a

sounds like pure heresy

I still I don't get it why boot code sometimes went lost after reboot, sometimes not. if swap was cleaned at each reboot, I would lose boot code on EVERY reboot, not randomly.

the thing is that it's not :)

when kernel wants to swap the page - it does

when it doesn't want - it does not

the more is your uptime - the more is the probability

Is that when new data is written into swap at the same place?

and since the swap is the first partition on a slice - ....

don't remember if there was an offset on a root partition for loader

bet it was

who knows :)

another approach - don't mount the swap :)

but FreeBSD behaves erratically without it

If I use ada0s4a as ZFS, ada0s4b as swap. Do I create ZFS filesystems first and then write boot code or the other way around? Or it doesn't matter?

another approach - don't mount the swap :)

ha, didn't think of that, I'll definitely try this.

doesn't matter as long as you don't tamper with partitions boundaries

you could *also* use the swap on zfs

I should say that it may work

depends on the swap usage profile

opensolaris/illumos guys didn't make it - I mean - didn't succeed in porting zfs swap to FreeBSD (or Linux)

so when the swap on zfs is used in bursts (loads of pages going on it) - FreeBSD livelocks

when it's not bursty - could live for years of uptime

that's why everyone stopped using swap on zfs and the documentation was wiped

but it's still possible, after all - it's a laptop

sad thing Solaris was not only capable of using the swap on zfs, but also kerneldumping on it