First, thank you for all the explanations in this thread. They were
very clarifying.
On lug 05 6:26, Robert Elz wrote:
[...]
> An insignificant difference is that FFSv2 has the totally useless birthtime
> timestamp added (which ought to be removed again...)
What do you mean here by
Date:Thu, 4 Jul 2019 22:25:11 +0200
From:Rhialto
Message-ID: <20190704202511.gd11...@falu.nl>
| What is "fslevel 5"? fslevel(8) only explains up to level 4. In fact it
| even claims "Note that FFSv2 file systems are always level 4."
The level is a constructed
Date:Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:26:35 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| FFSv1 also has a 32bit (or rather 31bit) limit. Since it counts fragments,
| not physical disk blocks, the effective limit for the filesystem size
| varies
Date:Wed, 3 Jul 2019 19:43:20 +0200
From:tlaro...@polynum.com
Message-ID: <20190703174320.ga7...@polynum.com>
| But if somebody had numbers about tests comparing FFSv1 and FFSv2 and
| the efficiency (for formatting,
FFSv1 pre-allocates (ie: zeroes) all of the
mueller6...@twc.com ("Thomas Mueller") writes:
>I looked using ls -la / and ls -la //root and found
>no .attribute subdirectory. I ran dumpfs to verify whether the file system
>was UFS1 or UFS2.
Have a look at the exattrctl command. It's used to create the attribute
storage.
--
--
//root and found
no .attribute subdirectory. I ran dumpfs to verify whether the file system was
UFS1 or UFS2.
Subject did not appear on my last post because of either a mouse copy-and-paste
error or accidentally deleting S in Subject from the keyboard. Header line
appeared as
ubject: R
On Wed 03 Jul 2019 at 12:21:39 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> newfs(8) and fsck_ffs(8) explain this, although I can see that it's
> slightly hard to follow. Basically, retrocomputing aside, there is
>
> - UFS1 level 4, which has a "FFSv2-format superblock"
> - UFS2
What is "fslevel 5"?
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 09:26:35PM -, Michael van Elst wrote:
> tlaro...@polynum.com writes:
>
> >I guess that my uncertainty about FFSv1 vs FFSv2 comes partly from this
> >confusion between fdisk(8) vs gpt(8) and the 32bits limit and the
> >mention of > 1To in newfs(8) man page.
>
tlaro...@polynum.com writes:
>I guess that my uncertainty about FFSv1 vs FFSv2 comes partly from this
>confusion between fdisk(8) vs gpt(8) and the 32bits limit and the
>mention of > 1To in newfs(8) man page.
FFSv1 also has a 32bit (or rather 31bit) limit. Since it counts fragments,
not
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 12:13:05AM +0700, Gua Chung Lim wrote:
> > If the partition is more than 2To, will the FFSv1 be unable to access
> > some blocks?
> AFAIK, FFS or FFS2 suports pretty big slice (much bigger than 2TB).
> The actual limitation is MBR. Maybe you have to use GPT.
> Correct me.
> If the partition is more than 2To, will the FFSv1 be unable to access
> some blocks?
AFAIK, FFS or FFS2 suports pretty big slice (much bigger than 2TB).
The actual limitation is MBR. Maybe you have to use GPT.
Correct me. if I'm wrong.
--
Gua Chung Lim
"UNIX is basically a simple operating
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:21:39PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> tlaro...@polynum.com writes:
>
> > I was assuming (don't know why) that when newfs(8)'ing a partition with
> > more than 1To, the format would be, automatically FFSv2, FFSv1 being
> > the default otherwise.
>
> newfs(8) and
tlaro...@polynum.com writes:
> I was assuming (don't know why) that when newfs(8)'ing a partition with
> more than 1To, the format would be, automatically FFSv2, FFSv1 being
> the default otherwise.
newfs(8) and fsck_ffs(8) explain this, although I can see that it's
slightly hard to follow.
Hello,
I was assuming (don't know why) that when newfs(8)'ing a partition with
more than 1To, the format would be, automatically FFSv2, FFSv1 being
the default otherwise.
Dumpfs(8) is a bit confusing since the superblock are said to be FFSv2,
while the filesystem is identified as FFSv1. So I
14 matches
Mail list logo
