How dangerous is 5.2 for production use

[Peter Risdon]

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.

PWR.