From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 23 03:17:27 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 57EC616A4CE for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de (antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de [134.102.176.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 651D143D53 for ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 03:17:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rebehn@ant.uni-bremen.de) Received: from europa.ant.uni-bremen.de ([134.102.176.10] helo=ant.uni-bremen.de) by antsrv1.ant.uni-bremen.de with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1AjzJT-000B8H-1B; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:17:23 +0100 Message-ID: <40110219.6050207@ant.uni-bremen.de> Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:14:33 +0100 From: Heinrich Rebehn User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Seaman References: <4010DF2B.1070804@ant.uni-bremen.de> <20040123091337.GA46755@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <4010EE2E.3050200@circlesquared.com> <20040123102259.GA47759@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040123102259.GA47759@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Peter Risdon 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 11:17:27 -0000 Matthew Seaman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +0000, Peter Risdon wrote: > >>Matthew Seaman wrote: > > > >>>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 >>shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it >>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 > I did some searching too and bgfsck does seem to be available for UFS. I'll install 5.2 on my machine today and test myself.. Heinrich