From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 27 15:47:15 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 8072337B401; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.reppep.com (www.reppep.com [66.92.104.200]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CFC143FA3; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 15:47:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pepper@reppep.com) Received: from [66.92.104.201] (g4.reppep.com [66.92.104.201]) by www.reppep.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC68FDAF; Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:47:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: pepper@mail.reppep.com Message-Id: 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> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:47:01 -0400 To: Jim Brown From: Chris Pepper Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Little UFS2 FAQ 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: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 22:47:16 -0000 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. > > > What is the difference between UFS and FFS? > > > 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. > > This explanation is much needed, but not detailed enough. Are they both really considered 'file systems'? > > > What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD? > > > 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 flag to &man.newfs.8, > or hit 1 in the label editor in > &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1. > > PC98 machines are excempt and still default > to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?" > > > 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 @@ Addition of per-inode extended attribute extent - Lazy inode initialization (watch newfs(8) fly) + Lazy inode initialization (watch &man.newfs.8 fly) @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ 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. @@ -231,16 +231,16 @@ What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD? - As of 2003/04/20, &man.newfs.8 and &man.sysinstall.8 will - create UFS2 file systems by default, unless explicitly specified. + 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 flag to &man.newfs.8, or hit 1 in the label editor in &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1. - PC98 machines machines are excempt and still default - to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem?" + PC98 machines are excempt and still default + to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?" @@ -252,43 +252,46 @@ 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 + by default. If you want a UFS2 fileystem, specify as an option. - No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support, + No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support; it's contained within the FFS code. - 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 + 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. + 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. - On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem? + On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem? The answer to this is defined by /boot/loader. FreeBSD - Alpha, IA64, and Sparc have no problems. + Alpha, IA64, and SPARC have no problems. + 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. - NetBSD support I don't know anything about.. + 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. + + NetBSD support is unknown to the author of this + document as of this writing. - Is there a UFS to UFS2 conversion tool? + Is there a UFS1 to UFS2 conversion tool? No, but see next question. @@ -297,10 +300,10 @@ - Will "dump" on UFS and "restore" on UFS2 filesystem work? + Can a UFS1 dump be restored to a UFS2 filesystem? - Yes, that will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?) + Yes, this will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?) @@ -332,6 +335,7 @@ You need a loader and bootblocks that support UFS2. Try using disklabel -B +
From Daniel Sobral You need a new boot block.