It wouldn't be the BSD way to try to stop the user shooting themselves in the foot. And I agree too as it wouldn't be right for glabel to try to keep track of all possible uses for a volume and know whether each is present. That would be a typical Linux type solution. However, would it be too much for glabel to just know about UFS and tell the user to use tunefs instead if there appears to be a UFS filesystem present ? On 17 May 2010 23:32, Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely7.cicely.de> wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:54:17PM +0930, Matt Thyer wrote: >> On 12 May 2010 11:16, Bernd Walter <ticso_at_cicely7.cicely.de> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:15:13PM +0200, Alexander Best wrote: >> > > i've posted a log here which is pretty self explanatory: >> > > >> > > http://pastebin.com/tn3NiDDW >> > > >> >> [snip] >> >> > >> > One of the typical problems users have is that they forget that >> > adding a label takes one sector, so the labeled device is smaller. >> > This is no problem if you create the filesystem on the labeled >> > drive, but often enough people add the label after creating the >> > filesystem. >> >> FreeBSD's utilities should be able to detect this situation and either >> correct the filesystem size or refuse to apply the label. > > How can this work? > glabel doesn't know anything about volume contents - it just writes a > label-sector and offers the remaning storage as a new volume. > Result: Refusing is impossible. > Changing UFS filesystem size isn't an easy task and the last sector is > already lost when filesystem comes into game. > Result: Too late. > I think the only reasonable thing to be done is that fsck can speak > up by checking the volume size with the filesystems size _after_ glabel > has overwritten the last sector. > > -- > B.Walter <bernd_at_bwct.de> http://www.bwct.de > Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O Baugruppen, ARM basierte FreeBSD Rechner uvm. >Received on Wed May 19 2010 - 08:38:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:03 UTC