From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 28 09:56:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3350216A4CE for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.omnis.com (smtp.omnis.com [216.239.128.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8642C43F75 for ; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.homeunix.net (66-91-236-204.san.rr.com [66.91.236.204]) by smtp-relay.omnis.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6977872DB5; Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:51:19 -0800 (PST) From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr To: Dan Strick , pmes@btinet.net Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:56:06 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200310281642.h9SGgGBs000368@ice.nodomain> In-Reply-To: <200310281642.h9SGgGBs000368@ice.nodomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200310280956.06279.wes@softweyr.com> cc: dan@ice.nodomain cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS file system problem in either stable or current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:56:14 -0000 On Tuesday 28 October 2003 08:42 am, Dan Strick wrote: > 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. I need them to be compatible if possible. I'm working on a few related problems, so I'm becoming more familiar with the code. I'm willing to help if you have an approach in mind. Do you know why the change was made? > 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. If somebody does so, please don't use the fs_state field; I have a local patch that uses that for a different (incompatible) purpose that I'd like to commit soon. -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com