Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:56:14 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@beastie.mckusick.com> Subject: Re: newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks Message-ID: <32963.1068627374@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:35:16 %2B1100." <20031108191433.J608@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20031108191433.J608@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >I don't use GEOM, so the label won't be going away for me. Anyway, there >is no dependency (the label is just one of the things that one might >examine to recover a crashed disk), and any overaul by GEOM would have >to duplicate the functionality of storing metadata about the superblocks >somewhere outside the superblocks. This is a very good example of where it is important to get your terminology straight: No sane "overhaul by GEOM" would implement this in GEOM. It could be hacked into various existing classes or even done cleanly in its own class which is almost as silly. > (I actually store metadata about file >systems in (backups of) disk files in /var/backups. Normal backups >provide inadequate backups of metadata.) This is probably a much better idea than anything you said until now on the subject. It might not be a bad idea to store the relevant magics in a /etc/ufs.conf file, but there are some details about device vs. media/filesystem identification in particular in context of dynanic devices to that must be worked out. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32963.1068627374>