Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:02:21 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, FreeBSD Stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: 5 to 6 Message-ID: <20061026060221.GA47902@duncan.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <453D9F1A.5040803@FreeBSD.org> References: <17719.43574.819134.370333@roam.psg.com> <20061020005501.R32598@fledge.watson.org> <20061023060431.GA3186@duncan.reilly.home> <453D9F1A.5040803@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061026060221.GA47902>