From owner-freebsd-current Wed Oct 4 23:52:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (winston.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.27.229]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D4137B66C; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from winston.osd.bsdi.com (jkh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by winston.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e956pgX96517; Wed, 4 Oct 2000 23:51:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com) To: Bruce Evans Cc: current@freebsd.org, bde@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ext2fs support for writing - what's the verdict? In-Reply-To: Message from Bruce Evans of "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 09:28:36 +1100." Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 23:51:41 -0700 Message-ID: <96512.970728701@winston.osd.bsdi.com> From: Jordan Hubbard Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I have 64K off uncommitted diffs (-c2) for ext2fs, but none for sparse > superblocks. This problem is easy to work around by not using > unsupported optional features. Run tune2fs and e2fsck under Linux to > turn off the features (see tune2fs(8)). That's a nice idea and may work in my particular case, but this is also the out-of-box configuration for Red Hat and most Linux-to-FreeBSD users wouldn't know a tune2fs if it snuck up and bit them on the ass in broad daylight. How hard would it be to support sparse superblocks? - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message