From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 23 02:23:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE33F16A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (ns0.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.69.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF0EE43D2D for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:23:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) i0NAMxse047955 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:22:59 GMT (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: (from matthew@localhost)id i0NAMxv8047954; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:22:59 GMT (envelope-from matthew) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:22:59 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman To: Peter Risdon Message-ID: <20040123102259.GA47759@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , Peter Risdon , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <4010DF2B.1070804@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20040123091337.GA46755@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <4010EE2E.3050200@circlesquared.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4010EE2E.3050200@circlesquared.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.62 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.62 (2004-01-11) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:23:07 -0000 --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +0000, Peter Risdon wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: =20 > >Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems > >you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck > >is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or > >deny that. > I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean=20 > shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it=20 > completes its boot process. Hmmm... After searching through any number of web pages, I must conclude that background fsck(8) works on all versions of UFS on 5.x. Conclusion drawn this way because if it didn't it would be documented as not working, or there would be any number of messages on mailing lists asking why doesn't it work? Also, background fsck(8) depends on the 'snapshotting' feature of UFS, which comes out of the soft-updates functionality definitely available in both UFS1 and UFS2. One of these days I really must get my hands on a 5.x system. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAEPYDdtESqEQa7a0RAu5AAJwM8KDRPU5fD7tLAHlqT5B7pjUyHACcD1Gp quZe3gPKQvi//tZ7rMyBa5Q= =RVGY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--