How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

[Heinrich Rebehn]

Matthew Seaman wrote:
> 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
> 
I did some searching too and bgfsck does seem to be available for UFS.
I'll install 5.2 on my machine today and test myself..

Heinrich