# UFS1/UFS2 detection?



## monkeyboy (Jun 29, 2011)

What's the easiest way to determine whether a filesystem is UFS1 or UFS2? *Bsdlabel* just reports 4.2BSD. *dumpfs* doesn't seem to say anything relevant.


----------



## Beastie (Jun 29, 2011)

monkeyboy said:
			
		

> What's the easiest way to determine whether a filesystem is UFS1 or UFS2?


Anything post-5.x (~8 years ago) uses UFS2 by default, so...



			
				monkeyboy said:
			
		

> *dumpfs* doesn't seem to say anything relevant.


Nothing relevant like _explicitly_ mentioning "UFS2" in the very first output line?


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 29, 2011)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Nothing relevant like _explicitly_ mentioning "UFS2" in the very first output line?



And so it does. Thanks (*dumpfs* dumps out so much stuff that I never saw the first line.)


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 29, 2011)

Just to throw out why I care about UFS1 vs UFS2.

I am trying to mount FreeBSD UFSs on Windows XP. The only method I have found is an obscure driver on Sourceforge that sort of works, but it is a bit half-assed. The UFS isn't a real FS on Windows XP. It can't be shared, webservers I can't get them to see it, etc.

So if anyone has a better method for mounting UFSs on Windows XP, please let me know. And I'm guessing, though I am about to try, that this driver won't understand UFS2, only UFS1.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 30, 2011)

monkeyboy said:
			
		

> So if anyone has a better method for mounting UFSs on Windows XP, please let me know.



A brute-force way would be to install VirtualBox and run FreeBSD inside it.  Add Samba and bridged networking and the host system will be able to net mount the UFS filesystem as if it were native.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 30, 2011)

wblock said:
			
		

> A brute-force way would be to install VirtualBox and run FreeBSD inside it.  Add Samba and bridged networking and the host system will be able to net mount the UFS filesystem as if it were native.



Wow, that's kind of wild, but I suppose it should work. Not exactly a "lightweight" solution though.


----------



## wblock@ (Jun 30, 2011)

monkeyboy said:
			
		

> wow... that's kinda wild, but I suppose it should work... not exactly a "lightweight" solution though...



Well sure, but it has downsides, too. 

Think about it, though.  I bet you could run it with 256M, maybe even only 64M assigned to the VM.  100% FreeBSD UFS filesystem compatible.


----------



## Zare (Jun 30, 2011)

http://ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/

It understands UFS2


----------



## monkeyboy (Jun 30, 2011)

Zare said:
			
		

> http://ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/
> 
> It understands UFS2



Yes, thanks. I can confirm that it does.

I wish the developer would flesh this driver out more because it is really a nice thing, but the fact that it doesn't really act like a true mounted filesystem severely impacts its usefulness -- like the fact that the filesystem cannot be network shared.


----------

