Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:42:52 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-questions@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.0 install and journaling Message-ID: <4EE442DC.7080107@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20111211002348.56497fde@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <4EE32BB6.3020105@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112100755520.11994@wonkity.com> <4EE38454.3020307@otenet.gr> <4EE3D1F0.60500@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112101509220.14596@wonkity.com> <4EE3DA85.4070903@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20111211002348.56497fde@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/11/11 10:23, RW wrote: > On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000 > Da Rock wrote: > > >>> SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes. If >>> something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck. >> But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that, >> and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes on >> the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or can it >> just boot and be done? > It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the > filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to > recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a full > fsck. > > Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a > fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and > avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the next > boot. > Yes, but I don't do a fsck to recover gjournal- it has a miniscule blurp for a nanosecond and prints a message at boot and thats it. Is it the same with su+j? If it does then I'll drop gjournal (and the performance hit) and I'll use su+j when I jump to 9.0. I've never done fsck on a gjournal (yet).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EE442DC.7080107>