From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 23 04:47:18 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 8E6AC37B401
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:47:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1D443FAF
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3NBlEoT015580;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:47:15 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Marcin Dalecki <mdcki@gmx.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:32:35 +0200."
             <3EA679D3.2010005@gmx.net> 
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 13:47:14 +0200
Message-ID: <15579.1051098434@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: HEADS UP: UFS2 now the default creation type on 5.0-CURRENT 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 11:47:18 -0000

In message <3EA679D3.2010005@gmx.net>, Marcin Dalecki writes:
>Peter Schultz wrote:
>> UFS2 is 64bit, allowing it to work with massive hard drives.  I don't 
>> know if it's true, but UFS2 may be faster if you're working with really 
>> massive files.
>> 
>> There is no UFStoUFS2 that I know of.
>> 
>
>Will "dump" on UFS and "restore" on UFS2 filesystem work then?
>Beocuse otherwise I could get caught in a system without proper
>backups.

Yes, that will work.

-- 
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.