Solved Can FreeBSD 11.1 amd64 mount an OpenBSD 6.2 drive?

As far as I know both use UFS but OpenBSD's UFS is slightly different and not compatible.
 
It doesn't say anywhere that it will work. As SirDice said, the two UFS code branches have become incompatible. But a quick google search doesn't find any reports that it won't work either. My advice: Try it, but mount the OpenBSD disk read-only: in case something goes wrong, you at least won't destroy the file system. And report back whether you succeeded, to add to the total knowledge of the universe.
 
Looks as if they both support ext4 as read only. So if you're multibooting, you could, in theory, have a small Linux install to use for sharing files.
(Both Free and OpenBSD are quite easy to boot from Linux grub2. FreeBSD requires a primary partition if you're using legacy MBR, OpenBSD can go on a logical partition.)
 
turns out drive was formatted freebsd ufs, Im all good

have 3 usb drive 5 4 4 t.....and almost fillign them w movies n books! madness!
part of me wants to make them all 3 zfs
but other part says leave all 3 as ufs and have some redundancy
heh
swooonk!
 
I believe that since both support UFS2, the difference is between the BSD label.I haven't been much inside OpenBSD (just tried it a couple of time),but If I remember correctly the BSD label used is 4.4BSD (like in NetBSD) while FreeBSD uses freebsd BSD label abd DragonflyBSD uses BSD64 instead.
 
I believe that since both support UFS2
Yeah, the problem is that they both have the same origin, hence the same name, but have diverted quite far from each other since then. Making them incompatible with each other.

Similar to FreeBSD's and Solaris' UFS. Both have the same origin but have gone into separate directions. So now they're completely different but, unfortunately, still named the same. Quite confusing.

If you need a filesystem that can be read by most (if not all) operation systems, good old MS-DOS FAT is the only way. It stinks but that's the way it is.
 
Back
Top