Subject: bin/26883: newfs(8) / tunefs(8) inconsistencies
To: None <>
From: Hauke Fath <>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 09/08/2004 10:31:06
>Number:         26883
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       newfs(8) / tunefs(8) inconsistencies
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    bin-bug-people
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Sep 08 08:32:01 UTC 2004
>Originator:     Hauke Fath <>
>Release:        NetBSD 2.0_BETA
/~\  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign                    Hauke Fath
\ /    No HTML/RTF in email	        Institut für Nachrichtentechnik
 X     No Word docs in email	                  TU Darmstadt
/ \  Respect for open standards              Ruf +49-6151-16-3281

System: NetBSD heiligenberg 2.0_BETA NetBSD 2.0_BETA (HEILIGENBERG) #3: Wed Jul 28 16:42:21 CEST 2004 hf@heiligenberg:/var/obj/netbsd-builds/2_0/i386/sys/arch/i386/compile/HEILIGENBERG i386
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386

	I was trying to optimize the filesystem layout for a HW

	'man 8 newfs' has the following section:

     -a maxcontig
                 This specifies the maximum number of contiguous blocks that
                 will be laid out before forcing a rotational delay (see the
                 -d option).  The default value is 8.  See tunefs(8) for more
                 details on how to set this option.

	While a '-d' option exists, there is no trace of it in the man
	page; in addition, 'man 8 tunefs' mentions neither the '-a'
	option (max. contiguous blocks' nor the '-d' option
	(rotational delay).

	There may be other places where the man pages are out of sync
	with reality.
	Compare newfs(8) and tunefs(8) with the source code of the tools.


	Somebody with good ffs knowledge please sync newfs(8) and
	tunefs(8) with reality.
	At least newfs is a fairly critical tool, IMO.