Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 21:23:23 +0100 From: "Martin Hepworth" <maxsec@gmail.com> To: Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 4TB filesystem Message-ID: <72cf361e0608061323j4bb68fbbibcc7af4b8f4fa687@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <eeef1a4c0608051301o3ecb12a3h7205107eb699e329@mail.gmail.com> References: <44D14C43.10957.1C8B605A@rabing.omc.net> <20060803001240.41813.qmail@web34508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <72cf361e0608051235n5c0e70fobc6f6caad8eeec69@mail.gmail.com> <eeef1a4c0608051301o3ecb12a3h7205107eb699e329@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK I stand corrected... softupdates "reduces" the possibility of having to fsck a filesystem.... ;-) -- Martin On 8/5/06, Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05/08/06, Martin Hepworth <maxsec@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and > > unclean umount..... > > > > No it doesn't. Absolutely not. > > After an unclean shutdown fsck runs in the background. And sometimes it > can't do that. Here's an example: > > Jul 23 17:54:01 zoe fsck: /dev/amrd0s1g: CANNOT CREATE SNAPSHOT > /d1/.snap/fsck_snapshot: File too large > Jul 23 17:54:01 zoe fsck: > Jul 23 17:54:01 zoe fsck: /dev/amrd0s1g: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN > fsck MANUALLY. > > > The /etc/defaults/rc.conf file has a comment on this too: > background_fsck="YES" # Attempt to run fsck in the background where > possible. > > > Frem. >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?72cf361e0608061323j4bb68fbbibcc7af4b8f4fa687>