From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Nov 17 16:23:11 2015 Return-Path: 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 6CAECA315F2 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:23:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x229.google.com (mail-wm0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A1B1D26 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:23:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com) Received: by wmdw130 with SMTP id w130so162335162wmd.0 for ; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:23:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Bj1xBD1djx6F2bGBFkAtmTBfUipqcbuZLewaWWDvqs0=; b=IRg2jpqWRlHPpnP/N1Gg/GRXMmC79IEvdiTXVsSeMnt16HSvI/m/z9EeBMFgphNGfg uWYOorCAYkfgQZwKWdhJg5BLQrWQEollAIy8qNlwFov++RR77mbLVpNC952PqasQLdlb 9I8XQWMRTI+l4oKv8oo0w0Nk6Py/1RqBSYRxNTIySJRbPcNuBoXidayhs3lyqvQEYy5g 52JAhQy42CcqJlRen27z0IQ0ZnOzv4+76qWDV9HGlMmegIFf48cavcZGTVPzWyZS4nyN v6AOqGgjniu05UBaz6f2D3w1sESrNDD2qO/YJphj/ATYX7HprB2+oyGz1caFCUSMgXw6 7Avw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.179.101 with SMTP id df5mr43718602wjc.60.1447777389341; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:23:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.16.231 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:23:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20151116164507.GA87691@neutralgood.org> References: <56498205.3060806@ze.tum.de> <20151116094334.GS2604@mordor.lan> <5649A761.7040303@ze.tum.de> <20151116111609.a9757a4a.freebsd@edvax.de> <5649AEC3.5090104@ze.tum.de> <20151116164507.GA87691@neutralgood.org> Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:23:09 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Random Lockup with FreeBSD 10.2 on SuperMicro Boards From: Adam Vande More To: kpneal@pobox.com Cc: Gerhard Schmidt , Polytropon , FreeBSD Questions Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.20 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 16:23:11 -0000 On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:45 AM, wrote: > When in doubt use 'fsck -f' to force a check despite the filesystem > being marked clean. > Yes, but a full fsck should be run on a regular basis regardless of suspicion. Personally, I got bit by SU (plain) a long time ago and I've never really > trusted it since. I strongly advise you to 'fsck -f' on your /var just to > rule out _any_ corruption there. > A lower level fs error isn't going be to detected by a background fsck(only does preening) or SUJ fsck(trusts the journal). Such errors can occur on *any* journaled fs. Periodically doing a full fsck on fs's is actually something Linux does better. https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2013-July/042951.html Many think SU or SUJ obviate the need for a periodic full fsck. It does not. SU and SUJ devs have repeated this since their respective inception. [1] Hardware still lies, bitrot still occurs, do a full fsck. Vague reports of "I don't trust this" aren't helpful. If you know of a bug, please report it so it can be addressed. [1] https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/2010-January/009872.html -- Well initially it's claimed "eliminate fsck after an unclean shutdown" but details it later showing fsck using journal isn't a full fsck. -- Adam