Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:48:02 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Daniel Rock <D.Rock@t-online.de>, <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: fsck cannot find superblock Message-ID: <20020905154329.T4009-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <200209050035.aa83853@salmon.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Ian Dowse wrote: > In message <20020905053617.Q2728-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: > >> * drop support for 4K block sizes completely, but this breaks > >> backwards compatibility > > > >I use patches like the following for the sanity checks: > > I think there may be other problems that are triggered by using <8k > blocks on -current too. Last time I tried 4k blocks (pre-UFS2), the > snapshot code would cause a panic when trying to allocate a single > 4k block to fit the 8k superblock (the machine then got stuck in a > reboot-fsck-panic cycle until interrupted and manually fsck'd). I sometimes run a simple benchmark which tests most combinations of block and fragment sizes starting with 4096-512. This didn't show anoy problems for 4k blocks either pre- or post-ufs2. But it doesn't test snapshots, actual ufs2 filesystems, or anything else that is newer than soft updates, or full filesystems... Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020905154329.T4009-100000>