Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 02:48:21 +0000 From: B J <va6bmj@gmail.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Kernel Panics With Firefox 63.x Message-ID: <CAP7QzkOVcUR6wycThj4dVf6GAh_DVz%2B%2B7JJgukwYKQcNDD=33w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20181113224915.9429e289.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <CAP7QzkN_6sGAh66Am2oTfDmazWUD6Gxq2d5ss-kNewjcRoc5RA@mail.gmail.com> <20181113182954.1d7060bd.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAP7QzkN66pSTOmw0HAPsDAzRgxRtLXRgoqFZnAvNoXW1eLq5uQ@mail.gmail.com> <20181113201830.f0eec001.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAP7QzkO8=A-DVa7GxEXv0gpJL4MnDirz6DVfzF%2B6GdAF9h7aag@mail.gmail.com> <20181113205020.afc446d9.freebsd@edvax.de> <CAP7QzkOXYUZfaNxzUvH_XOmn7eE4ueT6E83H3TX%2BER9ETKy_fw@mail.gmail.com> <20181113224915.9429e289.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/13/18, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: <snip> >> I halted the building process and did as you suggested earlier. There >> were indeed a number of inconsistencies and corrupted files when I ran >> fsck in single-user mode. > > Excellent! > > Always make sure the file system consistency is present > _before_ the system boots; relying on background fsck > just asks trouble. ;-) > > Technical sidenote: The background fsck can only handle > a subset of errors. Common errors, sure, but sometimes > there is something it cannot correct or repair, and you > boot into an inconsistent system state, but without any > warning. A foreground fsck makes sure that _if_ such a > problem is recognized, you will be interactively prompted, > so you can decide what to do. In very few cases you do > _not_ want fsck to do anything, as it might make data > recovery more problematic; for example, you first decide > to "mount -o ro /something", retrieve data, then run > fsck and maybe end up with zero length files (whose > content you have already recovered), and then you "re-fill" > those files; or you need to use fsdb to help fsck with > a problem it cannot work around. > > However, for typical use, a foreground fsck will be the > right thing to do. You gain safety by paying with downtime. > You usually don't pay with data loss. :-) I've used fsck when working with external hard drives, but it never dawned on me to use it for the main one. <snip> > Firefox today uses a quite complex structure of files to > store settings. Combine this with a file system inconsistency, > and you can easily end up with files that get rewritten or > reset, but are still damaged at the next program start. > In case the same inodes were used, the file would always > be somehow damaged, and even if a process of unlink() and > open() / fopen() to create it would allocate a different > inode, it's still possible that the problem was within the > parent inode - and only a proper fsck would have been able > to fix this problem. <snip> I remember that Firefox used to be shown as a single process when running top. In the last year or so, it was changed and now it uses several of them. If I want to kill FF, I have to do it to just about every one of them. How many there are seems to be related to factors such as the number of tabs or windows I might have open. I've been running the newly-installed FF for the past few hours and there hasn't been any problems yet. BMJ
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAP7QzkOVcUR6wycThj4dVf6GAh_DVz%2B%2B7JJgukwYKQcNDD=33w>