Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:12:16 +0800 From: David Xu <bsddiy@163.net> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.privatelabs.com>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, <fs@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re[2]: [kris@obsecurity.org: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc] Message-ID: <1029181302.20010515121216@163.net> In-Reply-To: <200105150344.f4F3iVI45699@earth.backplane.com> References: <200105132342.QAA21879@beastie.mckusick.com> <200105142334.QAA05923@usr06.primenet.com> <20010515115630.H59553@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010514193332.A85465@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010515120558.M59553@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010514202707.B93481@xor.obsecurity.org> <200105150344.f4F3iVI45699@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Matt, Tuesday, May 15, 2001, 11:44:31 AM, you wrote: MD> I have to say, just IMHO, that as much as I like the concept of a MD> background fsck, I will never ever in my life use the feature. I'll MD> use the snapshots, definitely. But not the background fsck. It MD> is plain and simply too dangerous, *especially* on large partitions where MD> one has a lot to lose if something goes wrong. UFS just isn't designed MD> to be able to guarentee recovery, even if softupdates can't fail MD> theoretically. We would need a log or journal to reach the safety MD> factor that something like XFS or ReiserFS can theoretically achieve. Yes, I don't like background fsck too, it is too diffcult to manage, I'll turn it off on my machine. a nice solution is a journal file system. when will FreeBSD have a journal file system? -- Regards, David Xu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1029181302.20010515121216>