How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

[Matthew Seaman]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 09:49:34AM +0000, 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 confirm or
> >deny that.

> I'm sure this is right. If one of my 5.* machines has an un-clean 
> shutdown it states that it is starting background fsck checks as it 
> completes its boot process.

Hmmm... After searching through any number of web pages, I must
conclude that background fsck(8) works on all versions of UFS on 5.x.
Conclusion drawn this way because if it didn't it would be documented
as not working, or there would be any number of messages on mailing
lists asking why doesn't it work?  Also, background fsck(8) depends on
the 'snapshotting' feature of UFS, which comes out of the soft-updates
functionality definitely available in both UFS1 and UFS2.

One of these days I really must get my hands on a 5.x system.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.                       26 The Paddocks
                                                      Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey         Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614                                  Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20040123/b57908be/attachment-0001.bin