Subject: Re: LFS partition limitations
To: Manuel Bouyer <>
From: Tracy J. Di Marco White <>
List: current-users
Date: 10/03/2000 16:34:31
}> }At last with LFS we have a fsck. But I would still trust better ffs, even
}> }when the known LFS bugs will be corrected.
}> I had thought to use FFS+softdep, but my husband thought a journaling
}> filesystem would be much safer.  I wanted to use NetBSD on it, and so
}> I proposed LFS. compromise.  I'm really not that knowledgeable about
}> what a log/journal based file system would gain you.
}You don't need a journaling filesystem to have something reliable, I think
}a properly implemented (that is, not linux+ext2fs) FFS is better, especially
}in face of SW bugs or hardware failures. For unclean shutdowns, it's as
}good as a journaling filesystem, but you need an fsck before mounting R/W
}(which can sometime be a gain :).

Ok, my husband agreed to FFS+softdep.  Should I should send-pr this:

lyra:~# newfs /dev/rraid0a
With 160016 cylinder groups 312 cylinder group sumary area are needed.
Only 31 are available, reduce the number of cylinder groups.

Or is this just something I need to deal with using newfs's options
or with disklabel?  I'm a little wary of manipulating the disklabel
that was created when I configured the raid.

Tracy J. Di Marco White
Project Vincent Systems Manager