From owner-freebsd-stable  Mon Aug 14 21:12:30 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81F537B7F8
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7F4COr15008;
	Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 21:12:24 -0700
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: "Tyson N. Trebesch" <trebesch@mcn.net>
Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: A note about fsck
Message-ID: <20000814211224.V4854@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008142142170.77682-100000@mazer.mcn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0008142142170.77682-100000@mazer.mcn.net>; from trebesch@mcn.net on Mon, Aug 14, 2000 at 09:48:55PM -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* Tyson N. Trebesch <trebesch@mcn.net> [000814 21:00] wrote:
> 
> In general, it is a good idea to use fsck on the raw device and not the
> block device when you're interested in fixing the filesystem.  That is,
> 
> fsck /dev/rad0s1a
> 
>  is probably better than
> 
> fsck /dev/ad0s1a
> 
> given inconsistencies that arise between the block device and the buffer
> cache.

Actually afaik FreeBSD doesn't support block devices anymore since 4.0.

:)

-Alfred


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message