tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) (12/11/90)
In <1630@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> debra@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra) writes: 3.2 stuff deleted >I have experimented with sVr4.0 version 2.0 and can only say that the >ufs file system is horribly unreliable. Shortly after reading about >100 mbytes from a tape (but well after the time the automatic update >program waits to write the stuff out to the disk) I got a panic, >and fsck went on and on complaining about my file systems... >I went back to sVr3.2. >Apparently the sVr4.0 ufs file system doesn't get sync-ed properly >by the automatic syncing deamon... Are you sure? When you say 2.0, what AT&T build level are you talking about ? I remember there were problems in the ufs filesystem (including fsck), but I think they have been ironed out subsequently (can't remember the details). I should be *very* surprised that if the sync stuff didn't work. Tim -- Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW | Domain: tim@dell.co.uk Tel: +44-344-860456 | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim "What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (12/13/90)
In <1630@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> debra@svin02.info.win.tue.nl (Paul de Bra) writes: | I have experimented with sVr4.0 version 2.0 and can only say that the | ufs file system is horribly unreliable. Shortly after reading about | 100 mbytes from a tape (but well after the time the automatic update | program waits to write the stuff out to the disk) I got a panic, | and fsck went on and on complaining about my file systems... | I went back to sVr3.2. | Apparently the sVr4.0 ufs file system doesn't get sync-ed properly | by the automatic syncing deamon... I backup up my Dell distribution tapes by copying the files onto disk with dd and then back out onto other tapes. That's also how you get 60MB tape distribution, just put the two 50MB files on separate tapes. I also read in 180MB of GIF images from someone's system and had no problem with that. In my experience the Dell implementation has been rock solid, and I never had any problem with the Intel version, either, although I haven't beaten it up quite as hard as the Dell. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
andyc@bucky.intel.com (Andy Crump) (12/14/90)
>I have experimented with sVr4.0 version 2.0 and can only say that the >ufs file system is horribly unreliable. Shortly after reading about >100 mbytes from a tape (but well after the time the automatic update >program waits to write the stuff out to the disk) I got a panic, >and fsck went on and on complaining about my file systems... >I went back to sVr3.2. >Apparently the sVr4.0 ufs file system doesn't get sync-ed properly >by the automatic syncing deamon... In version 2.0 there are small windows in the VM subsystem that will cause a panic and corrupt the ufs filesystem. Generally these have not been a problem. I had been running version 2.0 with only ufs filesystems for 3 months on my workstation and had no problems. Problems with version 2.0 and ufs that I know will hurt you is if you have a filesytem with greater than 64k inodes. This will definitely hose you. Generally, I was able to create ufs filessystems in the 360meg range safely. To my knowledge these problems are all being addressed in the next version of SVR4 which should be alot more stable. -- -- Andy Crump ...!tektronix!reed!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.intel.com ...!uunet!littlei!andyc | andyc@littlei.uu.net Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed here are my own and not representive of Intel Corportation.