> 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?
yes. recover doesn't touch the w part of the device. it just checks the block after the last block in each dump to see if it's a sb. if it is it loops. if it is not, then you're at the end and the cache is cleared. > 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. kenfs does run on new hardware. i'm currently running it on an intel 5000-series processor and a brand new mb at coraid. it also does great with my valinux pIII at home. > i still think the stand-alone fs has its place, but i don't think my > garage is it. electricity: $5/month. noise: too much. not doing maintence to the fs: priceless. ☺ - erik
