Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:42:16 -0800 (PST) From: Dan Strick <strick@covad.net> To: pmes@btinet.net Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS file system problem in either stable or current Message-ID: <200310281642.h9SGgGBs000368@ice.nodomain> In-Reply-To: <3F9668A8.90702@btinet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:23:20 -0500, Peter Schultz wrote: > > Dan Strick wrote: > > There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs > > support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on > > both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect > > summary data in the superblock. Presumably only one can be correct. > > I just don't know which to blame. > > ... > > There is no problem AFAIK, you just have to fsck with the matching > executable. A lot has changed with FreeBSD 5, spend some time with the > -current archive and you will learn more. I'm sure you noticed how your > findings are consistently inconsistent. Thanks for the pointer. I eventually found at least part of the discussion in the -current archive. I interpret the discussion as follows: The 5.x UFS1 file system turns out to be slightly incompatible with earlier UFS file systems. The problem is only that it keeps the summary data in a different location in the superblock, but that is sufficient to make the file systems incompatible. There seems to be no interest in making them compatible. Suggestion: if FreeBSD 5 used a different clean flag and FreeBSD 4/5 always cleared the other's clean flag whenever they rewrote a superblock, the file systems would automatically be refscked whenever you switched between operating systems but not after a normal reboot. Dan Strick strick@covad.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310281642.h9SGgGBs000368>