Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:34:36 +0200 From: David Demelier <demelier.david@gmail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SU+J Lost files after a power failure Message-ID: <525C1D1C.9050708@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20131014133953.58f74659@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <525A6831.5070402@gmail.com> <l3gc7e$c91$1@ger.gmane.org> <20131014133953.58f74659@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 14.10.2013 14:39, RW wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 05:02:22 -0400 > Michael Powell wrote: > >> David Demelier wrote: >> >>> Hello there, >>> >>> I'm writing because after a power failure I was unable to log in on >>> my FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE. The SU+J journal were executed correctly >>> but some files disappeared, including /etc/pwd.db. Thus I was >>> unable to log in. >>> >>> I've been able to regenerate the password database with a live cd >>> but I'm afraid that more files had disappeared somewhere else... >>> >>> I think this is a serious issue, the journal should not truncate >>> files, so something should have gone wrong somewhere.. > > The journalling in SU+J has nothing to do with data integrity. > > When the system isn't shut-down cleanly, soft-updates are supposed to > leave the filesystem in a self-consistent state, except that it may > lose track of some freed disk space. The journal allows that space to > be recovered without the lengthy background fsck that used to cripple > performance. > > If you are having problems with data integrity you might try gjournal or > zfs instead. Why? SU+J is enabled by default. Isn't the purpose of a journaled file system to ensure that any bad shutdown will protect data? On GNU/Linux, on Windows you will not require anything else to recover your data. I don't want to tweak the filesystem or use something different that the default, as it is the default it's the *warranty* that it is the correct way to protect data for new FreeBSD user's installations IMHO. > If you look back at the lists before these were added > there was a lot of suspicion about soft-updates and background checks. > Some of the problems were explained by some (mostly desktop) drives > incorrecty reporting what has been commited to disk - I don't know > whether this is still the case. > > >> This error about the replay of the journal(s) failing is somewhat >> disconcerting. > > I think this is probably a good thing. With background checks you would > (if you were looking) occasionally see "unexpected soft-update > inconsistency" during the background check, which would lead to a > foreground check on the next boot. > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?525C1D1C.9050708>