From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:19:00 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <640205b4834b5059f5ba5ff0d8d4ccc3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <6B8ECD0A-BB34-415E-A4BE-33FD27A03D30@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
References: <20130324221029.GA23536@one.invalid.invalid>
	<5f805f457dd047c8e3d07b9da6038843@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20130325020454.GA30785@one.invalid.invalid>
	<5F1EC164-55B7-43C5-BF91-0FBDFE55AD94@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
	<23765573d3a25fe7c40809294c25090b@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<6B8ECD0A-BB34-415E-A4BE-33FD27A03D30@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Disk backup?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3662fc52-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue Mar 26 03:28:07 EDT 2013, arisawa@ar.aichi-u.ac.jp wrote:
> Hello erik,
>
> look free block list in superblocks, and observe their changes.
> then you will find some of these free blocks are consumed for new file contents.
> if not, your system and mine is different.

i have seen the superblock[n-1] gets modified as superblock[n] gets
written, but superblock[n-1] stays in the cache.  i assumed this was
because the new superblock was deleted from the free list, but didn't
look into it.  "recover main" drops this info.

this is a slight annoyance, but not a bug.  if new files are put below
waddr, that's a bug.

i use ken's file server, not cwfs.

- erik