From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 18:21:06 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADD0D16A400 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:21:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22DC013C474 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:21:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (xeryjg@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l1DIKvAr009659; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:21:02 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id l1DIKumD009658; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:20:56 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:20:56 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200702131820.l1DIKumD009658@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, john@kozubik.com In-Reply-To: <20070213093220.C95571@kozubik.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-fs User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:21:03 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: comments on newfs raw disk ? Safe ? (7 terabyte array) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, john@kozubik.com List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:21:06 -0000 John Kozubik wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Randy Bush wrote: > > > this has been a wonderfully well-timed thread as i am about > > > to hack a 4tb array tomorrow afternoon. the normal spindle > > > is separate and partitioned to death and newfsed using the > > > defaults. with 2gb of ram, i figure 6gb swap just in case > > > two userland hogs are running at once, e.g. some hog while > > > background fsck is running. > > > > A bit careful here ... Background fsck had some issues, > > especially when the machine crashed or is otherwise reset > > while the background fsck is still running. It resulted > > in corruption that could not be repaired by fsck anymore. > > I don't know if all of those issues have been resolved in > > RELENG_6, but personally I always disable background fsck > > on all of my machines, just to be safe. > > [...] > UFS2 snapshots are dangerous and unstable, > and have been since their introduction in 5.x [2]. That's not what I wrote. I wrote that they _had_ issues, and that I do not know if they have been fixed. I don't recall any reports of problems recently (i.e. in the past few months), and there are no open PRs that seem to relate to the current code, so those issues may very well have been fixed. It's just my personal paranoia that lets me disable bg fsck on my machines (and I don't really need bg fsck anyway). You have to be very careful with what you claim, or people might accuse you of spreading FUD. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart Any opinions expressed in this message are personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix GmbH & Co KG in any way. FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things." -- Doug Gwyn