So lets repeat what I said to this proposal on the ufs-discuss list: > A lot of what you want to do can already be done via > fstyp -v and fsdb_ufs(1M). If you want to extend mdb,
actually not. 1) What are the things fsdb lacks in? It is very buggy, and has very difficult user interface. Adding support for any new UFS features has usually resulted in breaking one or more of its other aspects. The fsdb logging support is a shining example of that and is broken in a couple of places actually. 4658830 fsdb still doesn't handle large file systems http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4658830 4765915 fsdb_ufs logging support is complete rubbish http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4765915 4622941 ufs fsdb: "fs_clean CAN be trusted" lies! http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=4622941 6433317 fsdb_ufs's :inode command can display the incorrect inode number. http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6433317 2) What would make fsdb more useful and usable? rm -rf usr/src/cmd/fs.d/*/fsdb Alternatively, a from-scratch re-implementation, with an eye towards robust coding (such as not trusting what's on disk) with a less dysfunctional user interface. 3) What information/data are not provided by fsdb? Its general feature set is pretty good, the bugs and user interface are the problems. We've found other solutions for almost all the things we theoretically should use fsdb for, due to how painful fsdb is to use. 4) Are the user interfaces in fsdb easy to learn and use? No. The commands are modelled on adb, "to promote the use of fsdb through familiarity". However, it has almost no actual commands in common with adb, and adb is far from easy to use itself. Thus, it is almost impossible to use fsdb without having a copy of the man page at hand at all times. Perhaps if it were something that was used every day, the commands would become memorized, but such a situation is very rare. And last but not least - adb is gone anyways since Soalris 9. --- frankB This message posted from opensolaris.org
