>Number:         26883
>Category:       bin
>Synopsis:       newfs(8) / tunefs(8) inconsistencies
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    bin-bug-people
>State:          open
>Class:          doc-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Wed Sep 08 08:32:01 UTC 2004
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Hauke Fath <hf@spg.tu-darmstadt.de>
>Release:        NetBSD 2.0_BETA
>Organization:
-- 
/~\  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign                    Hauke Fath
\ /    No HTML/RTF in email	        Institut für Nachrichtentechnik
 X     No Word docs in email	                  TU Darmstadt
/ \  Respect for open standards              Ruf +49-6151-16-3281

>Environment:
	
	
System: NetBSD heiligenberg 2.0_BETA NetBSD 2.0_BETA (HEILIGENBERG) #3: Wed Jul 28 16:42:21 CEST 2004 hf@heiligenberg:/var/obj/netbsd-builds/2_0/i386/sys/arch/i386/compile/HEILIGENBERG i386
Architecture: i386
Machine: i386
>Description:

	I was trying to optimize the filesystem layout for a HW
	RAID-5.

	'man 8 newfs' has the following section:

     -a maxcontig
                 This specifies the maximum number of contiguous blocks that
                 will be laid out before forcing a rotational delay (see the
                 -d option).  The default value is 8.  See tunefs(8) for more
                 details on how to set this option.

	While a '-d' option exists, there is no trace of it in the man
	page; in addition, 'man 8 tunefs' mentions neither the '-a'
	option (max. contiguous blocks' nor the '-d' option
	(rotational delay).

	There may be other places where the man pages are out of sync
	with reality.
 
>How-To-Repeat:
	
	Compare newfs(8) and tunefs(8) with the source code of the tools.

>Fix:

	Somebody with good ffs knowledge please sync newfs(8) and
	tunefs(8) with reality.
	At least newfs is a fairly critical tool, IMO.

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted: