From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 2 11:52:09 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C70516A4CF for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:52:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.covadmail.net (mx05.covadmail.net [63.65.120.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 843A843FBD for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:52:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@covad.net) Received: (covad.net 7923 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2003 19:52:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mist.nodomain) (68.164.174.72) by sun-qmail15 with SMTP; 2 Nov 2003 19:52:01 -0000 Received: from mist.nodomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mist.nodomain (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hA2Jpoqb000382; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@mist.nodomain) Received: (from dan@localhost) by mist.nodomain (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hA2JpoHR000381; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:51:50 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Strick Message-Id: <200311021951.hA2JpoHR000381@mist.nodomain> To: netch@netch.kiev.ua cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: dan@mist.nodomain Subject: Re: UFS file system problem in either stable or current X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 19:52:09 -0000 On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Valentin Nechayev wrote: > Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file > system problem in either stable or current": > DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs > DS> support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on > DS> both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect > DS> summary data in the superblock. Presumably only one can be correct. > DS> I just don't know which to blame. > > Does this require explicit fsck? > I have dual-booting between 4.9-release (and all previous 4.* releases earlier) > and 5.1 (of 20030526) with shared disks and boot checking required in fstab; > sometimes one of them crash and forced checking is made; neither 4.* nor 5.1 > claims superblock is bad. You wouldn't notice after a crash. The incompatibility turns out to be the location and perhaps details of the "summary information" (e.g. number of free blocks) in the superblock. This does not affect the integrity of the file system. It does affect the output of the "df" command. The first time you run fsck on a file system after modifying it when running the other operating system, fsck will probably find inconsistent super block summary data. "fsck -p" will correct it without asking (and might not even say much about it). I recently read something in one of the FreeBSD newsgroups that suggests that this incompatibility between 4.x and 5.x has in some sense been corrected in -current. I don't know any details. See also: Dan Strick strick@covad.net