From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 29 17:35:03 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D9B106566B; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:35:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mckusick@mckusick.com) Received: from chez.mckusick.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:5a8:4:7e72:4a5b:39ff:fe12:452]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFA38FC16; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2THYwYi026461; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com) Message-Id: <201203291734.q2THYwYi026461@chez.mckusick.com> To: lev@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <1884361371.20120329121344@serebryakov.spb.ru> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:58 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=MISSING_MID, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=failed version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on chez.mckusick.com Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is actual status of SUJ in 9-STABLE? 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:35:03 -0000 > Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:13:44 +0400 > From: Lev Serebryakov > To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > Subject: What is actual status of SUJ in 9-STABLE? > > Hello, Freebsd-fs. > > My server crashed today morning due to PSU failure, and now it is > checking (in foreground!) 8Tb UFS2+SU volume for 6200 seconds, and it > is only "Phase 1b" (!!!). I don't want even think about background > check of this FS. > > Is SUJ stable enough to migrate to it? It was marked as stable some > time ago, and was included into 9-RELEASE, but later I seen some > messages on fs@ list, that it still has some problems, and even some > references to McKusick's message about this instability (but I've failed > to find message itself). Most of the issues with SUJ are related to their interaction with snapshots. At the moment 9-head (head of the 9 branch) has had the taking of snapshots disabled on filesystems running with SUJ (but not with SU). There have been some important bug fixes to SUJ since 9-release. So if you wish to use SUJ, I recommend using 9-head rather than 9-release. > BTW, this check reveals many softupdate inconsistences (mostly DUPs), > and most of them are in files, which was not written for sure in time > of crash (old archives, which could be only read!). > > -- > // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov It sounds like you have a disk sector containing a block of inodes trashed or gone bad. Kirk McKusick