From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep  6 07:28:02 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id HAA17594
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:28:02 -0700
Received: (from gclarkii@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id HAA17584
          ; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:28:01 -0700
From: Gary Clark II <gclarkii>
Message-Id: <199509061428.HAA17584@freefall.freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 07:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: terry@lambert.org, peter@taronga.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509052338.SAA25384@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Sep 5, 95 06:38:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1069      
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> 
> 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.
> 
Hi,

Someone please correct me, did 1.1.5.1 even have clean bits????  I remember
upgrading and this would happen with 1.1.5.1 FS with 2.X.  2.X would think
its dirty and always fsck the drive.

It was not until I converted all off my filesystems to 2.X did I start getting
clean re-boots.

Gary
-- 
Gary Clark II   (N5VMF)     |          FreeBSD support and service  
gclarkii@FreeBSD.ORG        |     mail info@gbdata.com for information 
                     FreeBSD FAQ at ftp.FreeBSD.ORG in        
       ~pub/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-current/src/share/FAQ/Text/FreeBSD.FAQ