Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!hobbes.physics.uiowa.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cyber2.cyberstore.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!deep.rsoft.bc.ca!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: [BUG?] newfs with bsize = 16 kb ?
Date: 27 Oct 93 23:28:40
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <CGD.93Oct27232840@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <2agbtr$5v0@Germany.EU.net> <NEWSSERV!STARK!GENE.93Oct25153858@stark.uucp>
<CFI5oM.n3u@flatlin.ka.sub.org>
<1993Oct26.131750.16443@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: wiserner@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE's message of Tue, 26 Oct 1993 13:17:50 GMT
In article <1993Oct26.131750.16443@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE> wiserner@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernd Wiserner) writes:
It was NetBSD 0.9 .
before having this disk-eating crash, did you attempt to recompile
your kernel with MAXBSIZE=16384? if so, are you 100% sure that
you recompiled it from scratch? if not, that could the problem.
as noted (and can be seen from looking at the source), the UFS
will not (or, perhaps better state, should not) allow you to
mount a file system which has a block size greater than MAXBSIZE.
if you're 100% sure that you compiled a kernel from scratch,
then you might have found a bug in 0.9's vfs_bio which isn't
obvious to me on inspection... In any case, NetBSD-current's
vfs_bio's handling of buffer size and allocation is fundamentally
different than 0.9's -- if you're interested, grab the -current
sources and check take a look...
chris
--
chris g. demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
smarter than your average clam.