Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/growfs debug.c debug.h Message-ID: <20030814133614.M93994@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20030814223052.O744@leelou.in.tern> References: <20030814184108.AE45F37B49A@hub.freebsd.org> <20030814125213.X93797@root.org> <20030814220900.D744@leelou.in.tern> <20030814132424.N93994@root.org> <20030814223052.O744@leelou.in.tern>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Nate Lawson wrote: > > The number one problem is the code sucks. No one is willing to maintain > > it because of this. > > Oh. :-) > > > The number two problem is that not enough testing has been done with > > growfs on UFS2. Feel free to do this and report any problems. > > I've successfully grown UFS2 filesystems residing on vinum volumes in the > past, but I didn't do I regularly. Have you done it with ACLs? Snapshots? I've done light testing using md(4) but it's not enough. This needs to be tested. > > The actual problem I am addressing is larger than growfs. Basically, any > > time a sblock change is made, every UFS utility in the system has to be > > updated and growfs has not kept up. So I have extracted sblock updating > > into a routine that is shared between the kernel and userland so that it's > > only in one place in the code. But more work is needed before it can be > > committed. > > Well, I'd say that libufs is already a right step in this direction. It also needs work but is outside the scope of what I'm doing. > I > would have already patched growfs to use libufs, but growfs somehow seems > a little bit too much like voodoo. :-) Back to my point at the top. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030814133614.M93994>