From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Mar 28 7:23:31 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D582514BEF for ; Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:23:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id AAA00138; Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:23:21 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <36FE4857.14E19467@newsguy.com> Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 00:18:47 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Darren Reed , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: another ufs panic.. References: <199903281420.AAA18161@cheops.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Darren Reed wrote: > > I never realised ufs was so bad on freebsd...I experienced another > panic whilst using pax to copy one fs to another (was already 90% there > on the destination due to the crash from dump/restore). Neither did anyone else, since nobody seems to have the problem you describe. Or, if they do, they are so screwed up that they can't even open a PR. So... how about opening a PR? > ...there have been substantial ufs improvements in 3.x, yes ? No. Nobody has been complaining about ufs. Hell, that's the fs we all use. We wouldn't be *able* to do anything if it was so buggy. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "What kind of psychologist laughs at her patients?" "I don't laugh at all of them." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message