Jeffrey Ohlmann wrote:

[ interesting catch-22 about a disk that requires ncrscsi and one that
requires sbc deleted for brevity...i don't know of a fix other than
finding the bug in the scsi driver ;-) ]

> Possibly related to all this, or perhaps not, is that an examination of
> /etc/fstab on each disk reveals that the HDD is "ffs" and the zip is
> "ufs".

i'd change it to read "ffs".  there is still a "mount_ufs" program which
would be called in this case and might be giving you some trouble.  i'm
not sure how fsck currently handles "ufs" partitions, i suppose it just
hands them off to fsck_ffs.  you might consider making sure that you do
have the correct fsck and fsck_ffs, tho.  if they are the same file, an
'ls -i' should tell you.

> My questions, then, are as follows:
> 
> 	-What is the difference between ufs and ffs?

basically, ufs is the old name and ffs is the new name.  there are
actually some feature differences as well, i think, but i believe that all
of our "ufs" filesystems are really "ffs".

> 	-Would a newly formatted zip, as a 'usr' only partition, be a 
> 	 better test subject?

well, only if you risk losing important data off of the current disk.  if
you're going to use a new one, you might consider using the NetBSD-side
'newfs' instead of mkfs.  Just remember that the Installer won't be able
to read it at this point.

> 	-Given the apparent driver incompatibility of these disks, is
>  	 there any hope of using them together?

well, if we can find the bug, sure.  if not, maybe not :-(

hopefully, this will be of some use.

good luck!

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - MD6                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.