dantso@bach.UUCP (04/09/87)
Sorry if this has been talked about before... We are in the middle of converting from 4.2BSD to Mt Xinu 4.3BSD+NFS. I noticed that when running 4.3BSD's fsck on 4.2BSD filesystems that it complains that the 4.2BSD directories are not multiples of 512 and ask to correct it. Should I say yes ? I hope I don't have to dump/restore all my 4.2BSD filesystems... Thanks.
dan@rna.UUCP (04/09/87)
Sorry if this has been talked about before... We are in the middle of converting from 4.2BSD to Mt Xinu 4.3BSD+NFS. I noticed that when running 4.3BSD's fsck on 4.2BSD filesystems that it complains that the 4.2BSD directories are not multiples of 512 and ask to correct it. Should I say yes ? I hope I don't have to dump/restore all my 4.2BSD filesystems... Thanks. Cheers, Dan Ts'o Dept. Neurobiology Rockefeller Univ. 1230 York Ave. NY, NY 10021 212-570-7671 ...cmcl2!rna!dan rna!dan@cmcl2.arpa
stevesu@copper.UUCP (04/11/87)
In article <622@rna.UUCP>, dan@rna.UUCP (Dan Ts'o) writes: > I noticed that when running 4.3BSD's fsck on 4.2BSD filesystems that it > complains that the 4.2BSD directories are not multiples of 512 and ask to > correct it. I was just reading through the 4.3 documentation, and I came across the following note ("Changes to the Kernel in 4.3BSD," section 4, under ufs_syscalls.c): _M_k_d_i_r now sets the size of all new directories to DIRBLKSIZE. Now, DIRBLKSIZE is DEV_BSIZE which is 512, and it's not inconceivable that efforts are also made to keep a directory a multiple of 512 bytes long once some real files are created within it. (For all I know, the 4.2 kernel does this too.) It would guess that the 512 character enforcement is just an efficiency tweak, although for a fully upgraded 4.3 filesystem, fsck's message would be a warning that 4.3 isn't keeping the directories as aligned as it thinks it is. In any case, I wouldn't worry about the warning, or about letting fsck fix the "problem." Steve Summit stevesu@copper.tek.com