On 8/5/09, leon zadorin <leonleo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/5/09, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: >> The big difference is that a disklabel is relatively easy to >> recover (the system even makes backups for your automatically). The >> label is in a fixed spot, and there is a tool (disklabel(8)) to >> rewrite it. > > Automatic backup sounds nice. Although I suppose I could use the same > principles to 'back up' the actual ffs superblock sectors to a > separate file/location/disk (dd if=/dev/rsvnd3c of=some_other_storage > bs=1 count=xxx) and during restoration clobber it back onto > unused/blank 'c' partition :-) :-) ;-) The main question would be what > info is updated to superblock during fs use (the 'clean' / 'last > cleaned' flags could be considered insignificant though).
Ah, I am also beginning to think that superblock would be accessed (e.g. written-to) more often than disklabel (thus higher corruption risk)... http://www.scs.stanford.edu/nyu/04fa/notes/l8d.txt " [...] Superblock also contains non-replicated "summary info." What's this? # blocks, fragments, inodes, directories [...] " So, 1 more reason to have written disklabel for increased recovery chances... :-) leon.
