Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:47:01 -0400 From: Chris Pepper <pepper@reppep.com> To: Jim Brown <jpb@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Little UFS2 FAQ Message-ID: <p06001006bad1e7efe655@[66.92.104.201]> In-Reply-To: <20030426061732.GA69855@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net> References: <20030423134528.GB25484@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <9C93B960-7598-11D7-9A25-000393754B1C@vangelderen.org> <20030423143657.GA26982@lenny.anarcat.ath.cx> <20030423144641.GA418@nitro.dk> <20030423170113.GE26749@unixpages.org> <20030424010352.GB1811@nitro.dk> <20030426061732.GA69855@sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:17 AM -0400 2003/04/26, Jim Brown wrote: >I've marked it up and posted it at http://sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net/jeroen/faq.html >There doesn't seem to be a good 'home' for this poor child- perhaps tacked onto >http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/errata.html somewhere? > > >If anyone would like the markup it's at >http://sixshooter.v6.thrupoint.net/jeroen/Little_UFS_FAQ.sgml. I've taken a look at the FAQ. My suggested patch is at the bottom of this message, but there are a few bits I don't have proposed fixes for. Program names (like fsck) need to be tagged. > <qandaentry> > <question id="UFS-diff-FFS"> > <para>What is the difference between UFS and FFS?</para> > </question> > <answer> > <para>UFS (and UFS2) define on-disk data layout. FFS sits on > top of UFS (1 or 2) and provides directory structure information, > etc, etc. This FAQ is about a revision of UFS named UFS2.</para> > </answer> > </qandaentry> This explanation is much needed, but not detailed enough. Are they both really considered 'file systems'? > <qandaentry> > <question id="UFS2-FreeBSD"> > <para>What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD?</para> > </question> > <answer> > <para>As of FreeBSD-CURRENT 2003/04/20, &man.newfs.8 and > &man.sysinstall.8 will create UFS2 file systems by default. > Users wanting to create UFS1 file systems for whatever reason > (interoperability with earlier versions, etc.) should be sure to > employ the <option>-O1</option> flag to &man.newfs.8, > or hit <command>1</command> in the label editor in > &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1.</para> > > <note><para>PC98 machines are excempt and still default > to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?"</para> > </note> > </answer> > </qandaentry> State whether fsck is UFS2-friendly. NetBSD mentions should include the version when UFS2 was introduced. Chris Pepper --- Little_UFS_FAQ.sgml Sun Apr 27 16:04:00 2003 +++ Little_UFS_FAQ.sgml.fixed Sun Apr 27 18:44:29 2003 @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ <para>Addition of per-inode extended attribute extent</para> </listitem> <listitem> - <para>Lazy inode initialization (watch newfs(8) fly)</para> + <para>Lazy inode initialization (watch &man.newfs.8 fly)</para> </listitem> </itemizedlist> </para> @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ <answer> <para>UFS2 has the potential to be faster for really large files by using jumbo blocks, but the code to do that has yet to be - written. Additionally, because inodes lazily initialized in UFS2, + written. Additionally, because inodes are lazily initialized in UFS2, &man.newfs.8 runs much faster. Other than that, UFS2 performance should not significantly differ from UFS1.</para> </answer> @@ -231,16 +231,16 @@ <para>What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD?</para> </question> <answer> - <para>As of 2003/04/20, &man.newfs.8 and &man.sysinstall.8 will - create UFS2 file systems by default, unless explicitly specified. + <para>As of FreeBSD-CURRENT 2003/04/20, &man.newfs.8 and + &man.sysinstall.8 will create UFS2 file systems by default. Users wanting to create UFS1 file systems for whatever reason - (interoperability with earlier versions, etc) should be sure to + (interoperability with earlier versions, etc.) should be sure to employ the <option>-O1</option> flag to &man.newfs.8, or hit <command>1</command> in the label editor in &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1.</para> - <note><para>PC98 machines machines are excempt and still default - to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem?"</para> + <note><para>PC98 machines are excempt and still default + to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?"</para> </note> </answer> </qandaentry> @@ -252,43 +252,46 @@ <answer> <para>As of 2003/04/02 UFS2 is not (yet) the default type for FFS filesystems. &man.newfs.8 will create a normal FFS filesystem - by default. If you want an UFS2 fileystem, specify <option>-O 2</option> + by default. If you want a UFS2 fileystem, specify <option>-O 2</option> as an option.</para> - <para>No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support, + <para>No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support; it's contained within the FFS code.</para> - <para>Please note that older fsck binaries will complain a bit - about filesystems if you boot a new kernel, because of some superblock - changes. This is harmless. However, if you have 1.6 fsck binaries, they + <para>Please note that older &man.fsck.8 binaries will complain a bit + about UFS2 filesystems, because of some superblock + changes. This is harmless. However, if you have 1.6 &man.fsck.8 binaries, they will signal a fatal superblock mismatch with the first alternate, - because they compare too many fields (evenones that aren't useful). - This is annoying, and I'd advise peole to upgrade their fsck_ffs - binary before using a new kernel. 1.6.1 will have an fsck - thatis forward compatible. Again, none of this signals actual - filesystem damage, but it's still annoying.</para> + because they compare too many fields (even ones that aren't useful). + This is annoying, and pepole should upgrade their &man.fsck_ffs.8 + binaries before using UFS2. &man.fsck_ffs.8 1.6.1 will be + fully UFS2 compatible.</para> </answer> </qandaentry> <qandaentry> <question id="UFS2-root"> - <para>On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem?</para> + <para>On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?</para> </question> <answer> <para>The answer to this is defined by /boot/loader. FreeBSD - Alpha, IA64, and Sparc have no problems.</para> + Alpha, IA64, and SPARC have no problems.</para> + <para>On FreeBSD i386, the answer is yes, modulo the restriction - that your root filesystem cannot be larger than 1.5TB. - (David Schultz et al. proposed a patch to remove this limitation.) - FreeBSD PC98 does not support UFS2 root partitions and it is - unknown if work is underway to address this.</para> - <para>NetBSD support I don't know anything about..</para> + that the root filesystem cannot be larger than 1.5TB. + David Schultz, et al., have proposed a patch to remove this + limitation. FreeBSD PC98 does not support UFS2 root + partitions and it is unknown if work is underway to address + this.</para> + + <para>NetBSD support is unknown to the author of this + document as of this writing.</para> </answer> </qandaentry> <qandaentry> <question id="conversion-tool"> - <para>Is there a UFS to UFS2 conversion tool?</para> + <para>Is there a UFS1 to UFS2 conversion tool?</para> </question> <answer> <para>No, but see next question.</para> @@ -297,10 +300,10 @@ <qandaentry> <question id="dump"> - <para>Will "dump" on UFS and "restore" on UFS2 filesystem work?</para> + <para>Can a UFS1 dump be restored to a UFS2 filesystem?</para> </question> <answer> - <para>Yes, that will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?)</para> + <para>Yes, this will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?)</para> </answer> </qandaentry> @@ -332,6 +335,7 @@ <para>You need a loader and bootblocks that support UFS2. Try using <command>disklabel -B</command></para> + <blockquote> <attribution>From Daniel Sobral</attribution> <para>You need a new boot block.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06001006bad1e7efe655>