Subject: Re: mkfs should clear possible alternate superblocks
To: David Laight <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 09/10/2003 17:37:38
Thus spake David Laight ("DL> ") sometime Today...

DL> From: David Laight <>
DL> Cc:
DL> Subject: Re: mkfs should clear possible alternate superblocks
DL> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:46:19 +0100
DL> X-Spam-Level:
DL> On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 10:21:13PM +0000, Martin J. Laubach wrote:
DL> > | > NetBSD over a previously NetBSD-raided drive, and the initial boot
DL> > | > after installation got very confused because it thought the filesystem
DL> > | > was still raided?
DL> > |
DL> > |  For FFSv2 it won't and the raid header will be intact.
DL> > |  So maybe the raid magic number needs adding to the list that get zapped.
DL> >
DL> >   So instead of hard coding a gazillion magic sector numbers
DL> > to be zapped, why does newfs not just take the easy way and zero
DL> > out the first 255 or so sectors?
DL> Because they contain the boot code.

1.  In every filesystem?

2.  Doesn't newfs skip the MBR and the disklabel?

3.  Which boot code, primary, secondary or tertiary?  [I'm guessing

NetBSD: Two guys with a vax.