Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 18:38:12 -0500 (CDT) From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert) Cc: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bad superblock? Message-ID: <199509052338.SAA25384@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199509052241.PAA24452@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Sep 5, 95 03:41:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> If this isn't your issue, then you don't have an issue; your superblock > is good, use it instead of trying to play with a backup. 8-). You are completely missing the point. When I umount under 2.0.5 it updates the clean bit on the superblock but not on the backup superblock. When I boot 1.1.5.1, it sees the superblocks are different and forces a manual fsck. Nothing is bad. I'm just wondering why umount doesn't set the clean bit in the backup superblock. It's not saving anything, since the system is routinely writing to the backup superblock anyway. And it provides the *illusion* of a bad file system when the file system is perfectly good. (yes, I know, it's not designed to handle switching file systems between the two, but that's what you do during an upgrade on production hardware... the system should be designed to make upgrades as easy as possible when it doesn't cost anything)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509052338.SAA25384>