From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 14 16:34:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9656AEB for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:34:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from demelier.david@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43ECD2547 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f173.google.com with SMTP id h11so2491472wiv.12 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:34:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pIWReXEBcucP2yIIXiHxniy+rPplZ1zwyx/wLXEYtB8=; b=GqXwWsGE+n0AD/oy41XdU+UGaZjusaznzKRoVLCXkie9pg53+jprRv1v2QonWJ/Gw8 PdA3+yMJmwHIkWqFDkAaC9DrLLFx3lOXihxuVL3vPGW2pGFCmkdja9kIwXRoEMrcwuKO 7R1s1MDqEyAYjjKnTft0glPeStpXdY0yhCWNzq3HLMmz8SNLx3F3zL4rMwbPytKGf9Vo IV4XKOpVFq4+PoXfJve98h2zXmdT2J0OGpP3VO7GDS91OuTbm9Y0fPZYJXY4XBj3gD78 KHUhSvBn5XNJcq48RMsxFRF+/RhOZL9HBKWE0BmGdQf9Lf00ZRE32k22TmaqeO0cl+td jfIQ== X-Received: by 10.194.201.202 with SMTP id kc10mr30265069wjc.1.1381768489690; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (171.33.91.91.rev.sfr.net. [91.91.33.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id om10sm35847539wic.5.2013.10.14.09.34.48 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <525C1D1C.9050708@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 18:34:36 +0200 From: David Demelier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SU+J Lost files after a power failure References: <525A6831.5070402@gmail.com> <20131014133953.58f74659@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20131014133953.58f74659@gumby.homeunix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:34:51 -0000 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" >