Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:40:52 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, olli@lurza.secnetix.de, ertr1013@student.uu.se Subject: Re: Question about forcing fsck at boottime Message-ID: <b79ecaef0904051340v6ba08df4sa376a1ef57e3a7e2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200903311657.n2VGvLE8010101@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <b79ecaef0903310247o356fdfb8mdc8cd2c3621366ee@mail.gmail.com> <200903311657.n2VGvLE8010101@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/3/31 Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>: > Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> wrote: > =A0> 2009/3/31 Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>: > =A0> > > =A0> > IMHO this background fsck isn't good idea at all > =A0> > =A0> Why? > > Google "background fsck damage". > > I was bitten by it myself, and I also recommend to turn > background fsck off. =A0If your disks are large and you > can't afford the fsck time, consider using ZFS, which > has a lot of benefits besides not requiring fsck. > > Best regards > =A0 Oliver > Right... You were bitten by background fsck, what _exactly_ happened? All the 'problems' here associated with bgfsck are referring to FreeBSD 4 etc, or incredibly vague anecdotal evidence. Have you googled for background fsck damage? Nothing (in the first two pages at least) even suggests that background fsck causes damage. Erik Trulsson wrote: > Normal PATA/SATA disks with write caching enabled (which is the default) = do > not provide these guarantees. Disabling write caching on will make them > adhere to the assumptions that soft updates make, but at the cost of a > severe performance penalty when writing to the disks. > In short therefore on a 'typical' PC you can fairly easily get errors on = a > filesystem which background fsck cannot handle. What do you mean by handle? Sure, it won't fix them, but it'll at least detect them. The chances of actually having a problem are slim, anyway, and it won't cause any damage either. Please don't assert information or stories about being 'bitten', without being more specific. It's meaningless and frustrating; I didn't ask who was bitten, I asked what the problem was. Also, please don't tell me to search the Internet without checking the search results for relevance yourself. I've spent a long time researching this, as have the FreeBSD devs, and they chose to make it on by default with no warnings. From the petty things they DO warn about, I very much doubt they'd allow something with a chance of any data corruption slide like that. Concrete evidence or direct links to problems with FreeBSD >6.0 ONLY in response please. Or, no-one has proven any reason for distrust, and all you lot are spreading is FUD. Sorry for the rant, it's not directly aimed at any of you, just the general assertion of 'facts' with no evidence, Chris --=20 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b79ecaef0904051340v6ba08df4sa376a1ef57e3a7e2>