On 9/20/07, erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: // i would guess that your new fworm is not exactly the same (calculated) // size as your old worm.
the fworm, not the cache? hrm, interesting. it's exactly the same disks, but i suppose that could be it. i'll take a look at that and how the bitmap is maintained. i'd expect problems there to show up in the explicit recover phase (which cwfs's prints say has completed), but it's worth a check. dropping the "f" is non-destructive in the face of recover? i've been looking at auth issues for some of the evening, since it's complaining about things related to attach. maybe that's a red herring. i'll take a look at the bitmap tomorrow. // anyway, what is the compelling reason to move to cwfs? it's prompted by something in my fs hardware going funny. i suspect it's just the terminator i have to use on the somewhat odd setup in that box, but it led to the whole "gee, i'd really like fewer PCs to maintain" line of thought. the kenfs is also quite old now, and the size reflects that; i'm considering just moving everything on it over to venti and putting the box in storage. not to mention a desire to reduce my power consumption and noise production. i still think the stand-alone fs has its place, but i don't think my garage is it.
