Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:14:42 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks Message-ID: <4937.1068707682@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:42:51 %2B1100." <20031113064251.GB39616@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20031113064251.GB39616@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>, Peter Jeremy wri tes: >On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:56:14AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>It might not be a bad idea to store the relevant magics in a >>/etc/ufs.conf file, but there are some details about device vs. >>media/filesystem identification in particular in context of dynanic >>devices to that must be worked out. > >How do you handle the situation when the master superblock on / is >hosed and you need to find the filesystem parameters (in >/etc/ufs.conf) before you can access /? I usually take great care to always newfs / with default parameters, because then I can use newfs -N /dev/ad0a to see where the superblocks are to be found. >If the BSD-style disklabels are going away, at least the root >parameters need to be in the boot blocks or somewhere similar. Sure, send a patch. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4937.1068707682>