Subject: RE: FS behaviour on error
To: None <"'firstname.lastname@example.org'">
From: Andy Sporner <email@example.com>
Date: 04/10/2000 15:10:56
Since I am new to this group I have a question with respect
I see many suggestions about changes to BSD (I am not sure how
much of a change this is--if any).
How sacred is the implementation of BSD? I have posted a
request for comments about PID's and heard nothing so I am
presuming that there isn't a big religous issue about possible
What exactly is the stand of the BSD group? I happen to
think this idea below is a good thing if we don't have it,
with respect to filesystem behaviour.
I apologize for some of any of my possible ignorance. I have
been mostly in the Linux arena, and previously mostly System/V,
so I am still working on the particulars of BSD, so please be
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hubert Feyrer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:04 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: FS behaviour on error
> It's been discussed previously what the correct behaviour is when a
> filesystem error is discovered. To provide some input, here's what
> mount)ufs on Solaris 7 has to say about this:
> This option specifies the action that
> UFS should take to recover from an
> internal inconsistency on a file system.
> Specify action as panic, lock, or umount
> . These values cause a forced system
> shutdown, a file system lock to be
> applied to the file system, or the file
> system to be forcibly unmounted, respec-
> tively. The default is panic.
> - Hubert
> Microsoft: "Where do you want to go today?"
> Linux: "Where do you want to be tomorrow?"
> BSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"