Andrew Reilly wrote: > 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, > dumpfs / | more magic 19540119 (UFS2) time Thu Oct 26 14:29:14 2006
-- tonym _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
