Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:15:51 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size) Message-ID: <201007212015.o6LKFp9Y066176@chez.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: <4C45D37A.5020304@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:48:58 -0400 > From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> > To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> > CC: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>, fs@freebsd.org > Subject: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: > bad size) > X-ASK-Info: Message Queued (2010/07/20 09:49:10) > X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by User (2010/07/20 10:28:39) > > 20.07.2010 11:44, Kirk McKusick ΞΑΠΙΣΑΧ(ΜΑ): > > 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... > > Yours, > > -mi Certainly disabling background fsck will eliminate that from your possible set of issues and may prevent a recurrance. It does mean that after a crash you will have to wait while your filesystems are checked before your system will come up. If your filesystems are below 0.5Tb that should be tolerable. The longer term solution is to use journaled soft updates when they become available in 9.0. Kirk McKusick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201007212015.o6LKFp9Y066176>