From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Thu Oct 22 02:59:52 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5899A1B72B
 for <freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:59:52 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de)
Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B221922
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:59:51 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de)
Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-13-119.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.13.119])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3DAC276FF;
 Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:52:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id t9M2qsqV002104;
 Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:52:54 +0200 (CEST)
 (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:52:54 +0200
From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
To: Matt Smith <fbsd@xtaz.co.uk>
Cc: Julien Cigar <jcigar@ulb.ac.be>, FreeBSD Questions
 <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re:
Message-Id: <20151022045254.57c5c8d0.freebsd@edvax.de>
In-Reply-To: <20151021152015.GF90075@xtaz.uk>
References: <867fmh12nq.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
 <CALfReyfg-71nCg4K0dKmUK-YmZ8yi0ppeGGv4WOD-2Mt8NP9HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <86pp081glq.fsf@WorkBox.Home>
 <CA+tpaK0ezoi7wBBD9VZwREq9Qp0YaJNfJY42=tZAYi5VSL8rCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151021143525.GX87605@mordor.lan>
 <20151021152015.GF90075@xtaz.uk>
Reply-To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Organization: EDVAX
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:59:52 -0000

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:20:15 +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> On Oct 21 16:35, Julien Cigar wrote:
> >The main advantage of SU+J over SU is to avoid a fsck at boot if the FS
> >is not clean. Note that SU+J almost never worked for me and disabling
> >SU+J (tunefs -j disable) is the first thing I do after an installation.
> 
> Agreed. I don't understand why this mode has been made the default. SU 
> always works fine for me but SU+J always causes corrupted filesystems 
> which it never bothers to fix either in the background or the 
> foreground.  I have to disable the journal and manually fsck it to get a 
> clean filesystem once again.  Seems completely flawed.

Same here. Even if a background fsck is being run, the file
system still kept some corruptions and would not be marked
clean, so the same thing repeated at next boot. A forced full
foreground fsck (!) would sometimes fix it, sometimes two (!)
runs were needed. By switching off J things went back to
normal again.



-- 
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...