On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Ian Dowse wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
> >> * drop support for 4K block sizes completely, but this breaks
> >> backwards compatibility
> >
> >I use patches like the following for the sanity checks:
>
> I think there may be other proble
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>> * drop support for 4K block sizes completely, but this breaks
>> backwards compatibility
>
>I use patches like the following for the sanity checks:
I think there may be other problems that are triggered by using <8k
blocks on -curre
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Daniel Rock wrote:
> Bruce Evans schrieb:
>
> >On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, D. Rock wrote:
> >>with 'uncommon' block sizes fsck seems to have problems finding the
> >>superblock:
> >
> >fsck_ffs has no problems here with (whole) md disk of the same size.
> >Perhaps I have fixed the pro
Bruce Evans schrieb:
>On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, D. Rock wrote:
>
>
>
>>with 'uncommon' block sizes fsck seems to have problems finding the
>>superblock:
>>
>># newfs -i 10240 -b 4096 -f 512 /dev/ad1d
>>Reduced frags per cylinder group from 26208 to 26200 to enlarge last cyl group
>>/dev/ad1d: 409.6MB
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, D. Rock wrote:
> with 'uncommon' block sizes fsck seems to have problems finding the
> superblock:
>
> # newfs -i 10240 -b 4096 -f 512 /dev/ad1d
> Reduced frags per cylinder group from 26208 to 26200 to enlarge last cyl group
> /dev/ad1d: 409.6MB (838860 sectors) block size 40
Hi,
with 'uncommon' block sizes fsck seems to have problems finding the
superblock:
# newfs -i 10240 -b 4096 -f 512 /dev/ad1d
Reduced frags per cylinder group from 26208 to 26200 to enlarge last cyl group
/dev/ad1d: 409.6MB (838860 sectors) block size 4096, fragment size 512
using 33 cy
