Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 10:30:27 +0200 From: Gary Jennejohn <gljennjohn@googlemail.com> To: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size) Message-ID: <20100721103027.3345a5e6@ernst.jennejohn.org> In-Reply-To: <4C45D37A.5020304@aldan.algebra.com> References: <201007201544.o6KFipaV084986@chez.mckusick.com> <4C45D37A.5020304@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:48:58 -0400 "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > 20.07.2010 11:44, Kirk McKusick wrote: > > Adding it to all the panic's will be a lot of work, > > but I agree would be useful. I will look into doing so when I > > get a chance. > > > > Kirk McKusick > > > How about disabling background fsck in a default install? It seems to be > the consensus here, that my troubles were due to fsck not fixing the > file-system properly reboot after reboot... > [trimmed to fs@] Since we're discussing bg fsck... For those running -current I highly recommend SUJ. It recovers the file systems in fractions of a second after a crash and obviates the need for fsck. I've only had good results using it. -- Gary Jennejohn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100721103027.3345a5e6>