Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!uunet!mcsun!ukc!axion!delluk!tim From: tim@delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: SVR4 ufs file system reliability Keywords: SV1K reliability Message-ID: Date: 11 Dec 90 08:59:44 GMT References: <7454@suns302.cel.co.uk> <1630@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> Sender: usenet@delluk.uucp (Usenet posting login) Organization: Dell Computer Corp., Bracknell, UK Lines: 23 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?"