Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:15:28 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size) Message-ID: <4C476370.6030907@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <201007212015.o6LKFp9Y066176@chez.mckusick.com> References: <201007212015.o6LKFp9Y066176@chez.mckusick.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
21.07.2010 16:15, Kirk McKusick ΞΑΠΙΣΑΧ(ΜΑ):
> 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.
>
We are about to ship 8.1 -- with background fsck enabled by default
possibly causing problems requiring far more admin time (and involving
real data-loss).
If the existing fsck can not be improved to properly fix the fs, when
running in background mode, just as well as when it is running
pre-mount, then, IMHO, it should not be enabled by default.
Crashes are quite rare and waiting once in a while for fsck to rumble
through would be better, than to have some people enter into a vicious
circle of mysterious panics (even if Jeremy's ongoing work makes them
slightly less mysterious).
Respectfully yours,
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C476370.6030907>