From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 13 19:01:26 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 07E3116A468 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:01:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from kozubik.com (kozubik.com [69.43.165.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2C613C4B6 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:01:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from kozubik.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kozubik.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l1DJ1RDl025456 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:01:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Received: from localhost (john@localhost) by kozubik.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id l1DJ1RLg025450 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:01:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from john@kozubik.com) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:01:27 -0800 (PST) From: John Kozubik To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200702131820.l1DIKumD009658@lurza.secnetix.de> Message-ID: <20070213104959.K95571@kozubik.com> References: <200702131820.l1DIKumD009658@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:01:26 -0000 On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Oliver Fromme wrote: > > > 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). Fair enough. For your information, they are still dangerous and unstable[1][2][3]. Your initial assessment is still valid today, unfortunately. FWIW, [1] is open and relates to the current code. It (bg_fsck and UFS2 snapshots) has gotten better over time - but it is still not something that I feel is fair to enable by default, as if it were rock solid, and force it onto unsuspecting end users who are not as well informed as you and I are. John Kozubik - john@kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com [1] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2006-January/016703.html [2] http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/2004-July/007574.html [3] [2, above] has been fixed, but large quantity inode movements keep coming back to haunt snapshots every other release or so...