From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 26 06:04:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7F5916A40F for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:04:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com (omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com [144.140.82.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E510443D58 for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:04:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andrew@areilly.bpa.nu) Received: from areilly.bpa.nu ([141.168.2.3]) by omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20061026060439.RVGS11173.omta03ps.mx.bigpond.com@areilly.bpa.nu> for ; Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:04:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 50247 invoked by uid 501); 26 Oct 2006 06:02:21 -0000 Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:02:21 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20061026060221.GA47902@duncan.reilly.home> References: <17719.43574.819134.370333@roam.psg.com> <20061020005501.R32598@fledge.watson.org> <20061023060431.GA3186@duncan.reilly.home> <453D9F1A.5040803@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <453D9F1A.5040803@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Randy Bush , FreeBSD Stable , Robert Watson Subject: Re: 5 to 6 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:04:43 -0000 On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 10:05:30PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Andrew Reilly wrote: > > >So: my two cents: it can work, but it's possible for it not to > >work, and care is required. > > That's always true, but worth a reminder nonetheless. :) > > >[*] The production server is using a software RAID mirror on > >a pair of SATA drives on a low-end Intel P4/ICH6 motherboard, > >using ar(4), configured by atacontrol. Fsck on 6.x can't find > >any superblocks on /usr, but 5.5 is fine. > > By chance did you upgrade this fs in place from a 4.x install? In > other words, do you have only UFS1? That's an interesting question. This server has been through a goodly few incarnations, over many years. Once upon a time it was running 3.4 or there abouts. I thought that I had re-built it from scratch the last time (to 5.3), which presumably would have given me UFS2, but the possibility exists... How would I be able to tell? tunefs -p lists ACLs and MAC multlabel and soft updates, but of those only soft updates is enabled, so I don't know if that is conclusive. Did UFS2 give us anything beyond ACLs and largeness? bsdlabel, mount and df don't seem to give any particular indication... Cheers, -- Andrew