Subject: Re: growfs utility from FreeBSD under NetBSD
To: Luke Mewburn <email@example.com>
From: Brian Buhrow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/09/2001 10:12:22
Hello Luke. I don't know if it helps, but I now have a working, but
lightly tested, growfs utility built against 1.5 sources, running on a 1.5R
kernel. I've been testing it with vnode disks, and I haven't tried using
it with opposite-endian filesystems. In my view, I'd like to se
functionality added to current, with possible patches to 1.5X in the near
term. Growing is certainly better than what we have now, and shrinking is
useful, but on the whole, I'd rather have growing over nothing.
Should I consider submitting my working growfs for inclusion in the
On Nov 10, 1:09pm, Luke Mewburn wrote:
} Subject: Re: growfs utility from FreeBSD under NetBSD
} On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 01:55:31PM -0800, Brian Buhrow wrote:
} > Hello. Has anyone ported the growfs(8) utility from FreeBSD 4.4-release
} > to NetBSD? If not, are there any glaring differences between our ffs
} > layout and FreeBSD's ffs layout?
} It's on my list of things to look at.
} You may have noticed that I've been syncing in various changes to ffs
} from FreeBSD & OpenBSD, such that our superblocks are now `in sync'
} (although we don't have ffs snapshots, the appropriate superblock fields
} have been reserved).
} Regarding the growfs problem, there's two solutions I see:
} - import FreeBSD's "growfs" (and ffsinfo):
} Pros: it works
} Cons: it's grow only
} - import der Mouse's "resizefs":
} Pros: it can shrink as well as grow
} Cons: it has bugs, which need fixing first
} I'm leaning towards the latter, because the ability to shrink a file
} system is useful. If that turns out to be ``too much work'', I can
} always fall back to the FreeBSD stuff if necessary.
>-- End of excerpt from Luke Mewburn