From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	NICE_REPLY_A,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 26030 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2023 02:05:12 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 7 Jul 2023 02:05:12 -0000
Received: from mail.posixcafe.org ([45.76.19.58]) by 9front; Thu Jul  6 22:00:02 -0400 2023
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posixcafe.org;
	s=20200506; t=1688695360;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=EgYXl99zdGJtVoY85SqqvmQBlFE4EYI1NYpgx3Toi1o=;
	b=bDol+ohiASoGNNla1Ppg0j9xmNFmMZu90zf+IC0XPKvCjiQJbnlZ5ravzcf7/JyQVfEaZA
	66WB+RL2sbd0LDt7EefgbpdCnPglOcfGjRIBX9cIX0thK8WefZmXu3dtPw+K4f7s2IOu5q
	9WSsNSdp2b8nvWq6LMrM6fNZcB3KBxc=
Received: from [192.168.168.123] (<unknown> [207.45.82.38])
	by mail.posixcafe.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 988aaf96 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Thu, 6 Jul 2023 21:02:40 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <c922b1fa-248f-92b2-d0ed-9bd34a4ce493@posixcafe.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 21:00:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
To: 9front@9front.org
References: <CAGzO+EpkoMSb2Ypz2TWSrAEE-e601K+3fry_==ft8Rah8fXXsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Jacob Moody <moody@mail.posixcafe.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAGzO+EpkoMSb2Ypz2TWSrAEE-e601K+3fry_==ft8Rah8fXXsw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: framework-based content-driven session manager 
Subject: Re: [9front] Install of hjfs fails on amd64
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/6/23 19:35, Jack Lawler wrote:
> I use the standard cwfs64x file system. Attempting to install  an hjfs file system fails in the current and recent releases. The install script fails on the mountfs step.

There is a "quirk" with the installer, when using hjfs the installer can auto pick a ram cache size
that is actually too big for hjfs. When prompted for the ram size input something like '512'.