Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:31:28 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Cc: snb@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, dan.naumov@gmail.com, sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysinstall, GJOURNAL and ZFS Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906101428591.49870@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <86hbyowgj6.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0906091632430.6551@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <cf9b1ee00906090757v7d589dfch978076a97be724a9@mail.gmail.com> <20090609172142.GA92146@ebi.local> <20090609.195750.41709103.sthaug@nethelp.no> <86hbyowgj6.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: DS> sthaug@nethelp.no writes: DS> > I've had several cases that needed manual fsck. After I turned off DS> > background fsck, the problems stopped. These days background_fsck="NO" DS> > is a standard part of my rc.conf. DS> DS> Hear, hear. Well, I can see at least one rather big problem with bgfsck (or with snapshots to be more precise): inappropriate time of file system lock on snapshot creation. On not-too-big 300G ufs2 not-too-heavy loaded snapshot creation time is 20+ minutes, and 5+ from that file system blocked even on reads. This looks unacceptable for me for any real use. -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0906101428591.49870>