From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Jun 10 18:28:07 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F1B1065673
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:28:07 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012708FC18
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5AIS2pT077506;
	Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
	by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q5AIS2sV077503;
	Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0600 (MDT)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net>
In-Reply-To: <4FD4D42B.4030705@denninger.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206101212410.77095@wonkity.com>
References: <4FD3AD35.3090301@denninger.net>
	<4FD4B9AC.6090604@ateamsystems.com>
	<4FD4BCA1.2010502@denninger.net>
	<4FD4BEC1.1020201@ateamsystems.com>
	<4FD4D42B.4030705@denninger.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com>
Subject: Re: Backups with 9-STABLE -- Options?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:28:07 -0000

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Karl Denninger wrote:

> 1. Is it REALLY safer to have the root filesystem run WITHOUT
> softupdates?  (As was previous default practice)

The FAQ has an entry which has been there for a while.
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/disks.html#SAFE-SOFTUPDATES

> 2. In order of risk of data loss what are the risks and options for SU,
> SU+J and neither?  Neither exposes you to huge time delays on a
> post-crash boot due to the fsck requirement, but SU can expose you to a
> failed background fsck and thus get you the huge time delay too.  Since
> SU+J eliminates this the only argument for NOT using it is that it's
> more dangerous to your data than running without either or with SU
> alone.  Is this true?

AFAIK, they should be the same as far as filesystem integrity, it's just 
that SU+J cuts down the time spent waiting for fsck.

> 3. Is there intent to fix dump -L with SU+J?

Yes, and there have been commits in the last few months.
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/ufs/ufs/inode.h?sortby=date&view=log

> If so, is there a projection on when?

Sorry, no idea.