Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:43:48 +0300 (MSK) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS file system problem in either stable or current Message-ID: <20031102124123.H39971@news1.macomnet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20031102091809.GA310@iv.nn.kiev.ua> References: <200310221014.h9MAEX3V001280@ice.nodomain> <20031102091809.GA310@iv.nn.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, 11:18+0200, Valentin Nechayev wrote: > Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file system problem in either stable or current": > > DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs > DS> support. If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on > DS> both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect > DS> summary data in the superblock. Presumably only one can be correct. > DS> I just don't know which to blame. > > Does this require explicit fsck? > I have dual-booting between 4.9-release (and all previous 4.* releases earlier) > and 5.1 (of 20030526) with shared disks and boot checking required in fstab; > sometimes one of them crash and forced checking is made; neither 4.* nor 5.1 > claims superblock is bad. mckusick's answer: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=100639+0+archive/2003/freebsd-current/20030323.freebsd-current Dan's PR: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=misc/58373 -- Maxim Konovalov, maxim@macomnet.ru, maxim@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031102124123.H39971>