From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 17 22:57: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from smtp-2.enteract.com (smtp-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5234037B422 for ; Thu, 17 May 2001 22:56:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@tumbolia.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by smtp-2.enteract.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55FE6570; Fri, 18 May 2001 00:56:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 00:56:53 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt X-X-Sender: To: David Wolfskill Cc: Subject: Re: background fsck In-Reply-To: <200105180531.f4I5VoI86453@bunrab.catwhisker.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 17 May 2001, David Wolfskill wrote: :(I see it does want the file system clean when soft updates is enabled, :but doesn't check for that for a disable request.) : Right. fsck(8) can make assumptions about the state of the filesystem if it knows that softupdates were in use. (There's a smaller set of possible inconsistancies, but I don't remember what they are.) It's safe for fsck to assume that the filesystem could be in worse shape than it actually is, but not safe to assume it's cleaner. David -- dscheidt@tumbolia.com Bipedalism is only a fad. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message