Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:34:58 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> To: lev@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is actual status of SUJ in 9-STABLE? Message-ID: <201203291734.q2THYwYi026461@chez.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: <1884361371.20120329121344@serebryakov.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:13:44 +0400 > From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org> > 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 <lev@FreeBSD.org> It sounds like you have a disk sector containing a block of inodes trashed or gone bad. Kirk McKusick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201203291734.q2THYwYi026461>