Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Dinesh Nair
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roberto Pereyra wrote: > FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf > Set in /etc/rc.conf > fsck_y_enable="YES" all that does is to automatically answer Y whenever fsck asks you a question. it still doesnt make fsck happen in the background as the

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Heinrich Rebehn
Matthew Seaman wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon wrote: Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Matthew Seaman
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:22:04AM -0300, Roberto Pereyra wrote: > > > However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs > > takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it > > fscks in the background. > FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf > > S

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Ruben de Groot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:22:04AM -0300, Roberto Pereyra typed: > > > However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs > > takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it > > fscks in the background. > > Hi > > FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.c

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Ruben de Groot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon typed: > Matthew Seaman wrote: > > >Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems > > > >you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck > >is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Matthew Seaman
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +, Peter Risdon wrote: > Matthew Seaman wrote: > >Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems > >you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck > >is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confi

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Roberto Pereyra
> However the fsck of our 300+500 GB RAIDs > takes almost an hour and that's why i want to switch to 5.x because it > fscks in the background. Hi FreeBSD 4.9 can fsck in the background too, look /etc/defaults/rc.conf Set in /etc/rc.conf fsck_y_enable="YES" roberto > The machine is an AS

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Peter Risdon
Matthew Seaman wrote: Certainly. You will find it better suited to the large filesystems you have than UFS1. I also have a vague feeling that background fsck is a UFS2 feature, but I can't find documentation to either confirm or deny that. I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has

Re: How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Matthew Seaman
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:45:31AM +0100, Heinrich Rebehn wrote: > I am considering switching our "production" server from 4.9 to 5.2. > "production" means that it serves some 20 people at our university > institute. > Unfortunately the machine crashes occasionally which would be tolerable > if

How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

2004-01-23 Thread Heinrich Rebehn
Hi list, I am considering switching our "production" server from 4.9 to 5.2. "production" means that it serves some 20 people at our university institute. Unfortunately the machine crashes occasionally which would be tolerable if it was up again immediately. However the fsck of our 300+500 GB R