Re: Little UFS2 FAQ

From: Chris Pepper <pepper_at_reppep.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 18:47:01 -0400
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.

>      <qandaentry>
>        <question id="UFS-diff-FFS">
>           <para>What is the difference between UFS and FFS?</para>
>        </question>
>        <answer>
>          <para>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.</para>
>       </answer>
>      </qandaentry>

	This explanation is much needed, but not detailed enough. Are they both really considered 'file systems'?


>      <qandaentry>
>        <question id="UFS2-FreeBSD">
>           <para>What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD?</para>
>        </question>
>        <answer>
>          <para>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 <option>-O1</option> flag to &man.newfs.8,
>	  or hit <command>1</command> in the label editor in
>	  &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1.</para>
>
>	  <note><para>PC98 machines are excempt and still default
>	  to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?"</para>
>          </note>
>       </answer>
>      </qandaentry>

	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
_at__at_ -141,7 +141,7 _at__at_
             <para>Addition of per-inode extended attribute extent</para>
 	  </listitem>
 	  <listitem>
-            <para>Lazy inode initialization (watch newfs(8) fly)</para>
+            <para>Lazy inode initialization (watch &man.newfs.8 fly)</para>
 	  </listitem>
 	  </itemizedlist>
 	  </para>
_at__at_ -220,7 +220,7 _at__at_
         <answer>
           <para>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.</para>
        </answer>
_at__at_ -231,16 +231,16 _at__at_
            <para>What is the UFS2 status on FreeBSD?</para>
         </question>
         <answer>
-          <para>As of 2003/04/20, &man.newfs.8 and &man.sysinstall.8 will
-	  create UFS2 file systems by default, unless explicitly specified.
+          <para>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 <option>-O1</option> flag to &man.newfs.8,
 	  or hit <command>1</command> in the label editor in
 	  &man.sysinstall.8 to select UFS1.</para>
 
-	  <note><para>PC98 machines machines are excempt and still default
-	  to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem?"</para>
+	  <note><para>PC98 machines are excempt and still default
+	  to UFS1. See "On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?"</para>
           </note>
        </answer>
       </qandaentry>
_at__at_ -252,43 +252,46 _at__at_
         <answer>
           <para>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 <option>-O 2</option>
+	  by default. If you want a UFS2 fileystem, specify <option>-O 2</option>
 	  as an option.</para>
 
-          <para>No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support,
+          <para>No additional kernel options are needed for UFS2 support;
 	  it's contained within the FFS code.</para>
 
-          <para>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
+          <para>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.</para>
+	  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.</para>
         </answer>
        </qandaentry>
      
       <qandaentry>
         <question id="UFS2-root">
-           <para>On which platforms can UFS2 be used as root filesystem?</para>
+           <para>On which platforms can UFS2 be used for the root filesystem?</para>
         </question>
         <answer>
           <para>The answer to this is defined by /boot/loader. FreeBSD
-	  Alpha, IA64, and Sparc have no problems.</para>
+	  Alpha, IA64, and SPARC have no problems.</para>
+
           <para>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.</para>
-          <para>NetBSD support I don't know anything about..</para>
+	  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.</para>
+
+          <para>NetBSD support is unknown to the author of this
+          document as of this writing.</para>
         </answer>
        </qandaentry>
      
       <qandaentry>
         <question id="conversion-tool">
-           <para>Is there a UFS to UFS2 conversion tool?</para>
+           <para>Is there a UFS1 to UFS2 conversion tool?</para>
         </question>
         <answer>
           <para>No, but see next question.</para>
_at__at_ -297,10 +300,10 _at__at_
      
       <qandaentry>
         <question id="dump">
-           <para>Will "dump" on UFS and "restore" on UFS2 filesystem work?</para>
+           <para>Can a UFS1 dump be restored to a UFS2 filesystem?</para>
         </question>
         <answer>
-          <para>Yes, that will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?)</para>
+          <para>Yes, this will work. (Example invocation would be nice. Anyone?)</para>
         </answer>
        </qandaentry>
       
_at__at_ -332,6 +335,7 _at__at_
 
           <para>You need a loader and bootblocks that support UFS2.
 	  Try using <command>disklabel -B</command></para>
+
 	  <blockquote>
 	  <attribution>From Daniel Sobral</attribution>
 	  <para>You need a new boot block.
Received on Sun Apr 27 2003 - 13:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:05 UTC