alanlb@csgrad.cs.vt.edu (06/18/91)
Hi there! Sometime ago I caught the tail end of a discussion wherein someone mentioned that UFS file systems on v1.1 shouldn't be used and that users ought to wait until v2.0 comes out. I'd appreciate it if someone would e-mail me the reasons for this. I'm currently migrating several file systems from A/UX and I need the UFS long filenames. Thanks! -alan l. batongbacal -alanlb@csgrad.cs.vt.edu
jason@cbmami.UUCP (Jason Goldberg) (06/19/91)
In article <1308@creatures.cs.vt.edu>, alanlb@csgrad.cs.vt.edu writes: > Hi there! Sometime ago I caught the tail end of a discussion wherein > someone mentioned that UFS file systems on v1.1 shouldn't be used and > that users ought to wait until v2.0 comes out. I'd appreciate it if > someone would e-mail me the reasons for this. I'm currently migrating > several file systems from A/UX and I need the UFS long filenames. > Ditto. I am using a A3000UX as a file server for an AmigaDos network, and the filename length restriction makes installing many Commercial software packages a real pain. Is it safe to use a UFS system under 1.1 for this purpose? Is it possible to mount an AmigaDos partition under Unix for this purpose? If either is safe, can someone give me fairly simple (I'm a Unix idiot...) directions on how to set it up? Thanks much, -Jason- -Jason- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Goldberg UUCP: ucsd!serene!cbmami!jason Del Mar, CA
dick@cbmnlux.cbm.nl (dick) (06/20/91)
In article <1952ff8c.ARN1022@cbmami.UUCP> jason@cbmami.UUCP writes: >In article <1308@creatures.cs.vt.edu>, alanlb@csgrad.cs.vt.edu writes: > >> Hi there! Sometime ago I caught the tail end of a discussion wherein >> someone mentioned that UFS file systems on v1.1 shouldn't be used and >> that users ought to wait until v2.0 comes out. I'd appreciate it if >> someone would e-mail me the reasons for this. I'm currently migrating >> several file systems from A/UX and I need the UFS long filenames. >> >Ditto. I am using a A3000UX as a file server for an AmigaDos network, and >the filename length restriction makes installing many Commercial software >packages a real pain. Is it safe to use a UFS system under 1.1 for this >purpose? Is it possible to mount an AmigaDos partition under Unix for this >purpose? If either is safe, can someone give me fairly simple (I'm a Unix >idiot...) directions on how to set it up? > >Thanks much, > >-Jason- > >-Jason- > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Jason Goldberg UUCP: ucsd!serene!cbmami!jason >Del Mar, CA I have such a beastie working here. I took a separate disk to have ufs on. rdb the drive then mkfs -F ufs /dev/dsk/c..... nmbr.of.sectors mount -F ufs /dev/dsk/c..... /xxx # be sure to have a mountpoint. share /xxxx You can do the mounts and share automaticaly. There is one problem, that the size is not correctly. f.i. a 40M drive would have 104M free 195M in use this is due to the blocksize 8K blocks. This setup runs here for two weeks now and no problems (sofar :-)), though it is stated that it is broken. Disclaimer: I cannot guarantee that it will work for you. you can have problems with it that I don't know of yet. If you want to be sure that it is really fixed wait for 2.0, I know for sure it is fixed there. -- Best regards, Dick Frijdal Marketing Support Unix Commodore nl --------------------------------------------------------------- e-mail dick@cbm.nl {uunet}hp4nl!cbmnlux!dick Voice (+31)205806789 Manager... Man-ager
rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) (06/24/91)
In article <1952ff8c.ARN1022@cbmami.UUCP> jason@cbmami.UUCP writes: >> Hi there! Sometime ago I caught the tail end of a discussion wherein >> someone mentioned that UFS file systems on v1.1 shouldn't be used and >> that users ought to wait until v2.0 comes out. I'd appreciate it if >> someone would e-mail me the reasons for this. I'm currently migrating >> several file systems from A/UX and I need the UFS long filenames. As a man who took his filesystems into his own hands... The official reason for avoiding ufs in 1.1 is that it CAN panic the kernel if your inode/second ratio gets too high, i.e. unbatching or expiring news.... I use /home for my source code and home directory. I have yet to panic 1.1 due to ufs. So, if the filesystem can keep inode usage to a slow pace, you should be safe. I'd be wary of making a ufs partition a fileserver area though, the inode use could be fast enough to cause problems. I'd try it for a while and see how it works, due to the nature of the problem, your milage will most certainly vary. It depends totally on the usage characteristics from what I've heard. C= may correct my simplistic interpretation of the problem. -Rob