From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 18 16:40:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2377B205 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:40:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from talayeh.asadi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1380B1C for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:40:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id x14so3563635ief.21 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:40:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=1DS/ye+eZSAB0BtwHPpwFi4/RSusbp6Y+Puf9KVP3J8=; b=PTjRvJ9tRkYpDphFcfDgGgBOHNZxzB7gmSQyUsvr2DX+udkjBafxYu0fpHbKLHuKuy DY9d4eurE8rWAaprULw/JOPvqOKi0aEi27LggDDjZ/hwUTGfITBMB1s1wbiRyOWCUyQY 4VOVjB5m6FvH86pubRTQGaQq5PR0cI5078AH+nRCXwkQRb/nRA92A7sPhm7Hrglu8111 g1JmTSYXDGlxW1KOmy0IRJTIQSH4kLprMlQjNl8fgqg+zy6nw36EzfZFGi56UJFDMw0n WYFCQGGHV020J+RuhXfdrZ9d2bwwbHxDluI2TyhgD+AWIN2kmcUpKIUgQ1/hJtprgKDU gH5Q== X-Received: by 10.50.40.162 with SMTP id y2mr7296343igk.65.1366303234979; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:40:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: talayeh.asadi@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.53.71 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:40:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130417173544.25266cd6.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20130417173544.25266cd6.freebsd@edvax.de> From: takCoder Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:10:14 +0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: g95VOGS3r8CbgRzr-_3pYs6ZuJI Message-ID: Subject: Re: pwd.db/spwd.db file corupption when having unsafe system poweroff To: Polytropon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: tak.official@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:40:36 -0000 hi again, real thanks to all of you; for really complete and clear answers.. it's amazing to have a clear view of what's on, when you need to deal with it. :) as a quick conclusion, for now: 1- i inserted a shell file to /usr/local/etc/rc.d/ which runs pwd_mkdb /etc/master.passwd and tested it.. the error mentioned in this email's title is no more seen in frequent tests.. (but i don't think it's that good to use a mkdb command this frequently.. right? for me, it was somehow a test..) 2- the notes mentioned about fsck was nice.. cause before this, we've faced uncleaned FS in the mentioned condition and we where in doubt where the automate fsck had gone?? ;) i think it's better to test the foreground fsck just in case.. for sure, background fsck has its own benefits.. but, any benefits has its own costs.. :) 3- this "power-key functionality setting", is what i'll work on, as it seems helpful, in near future.. but, i think for this thread, it would be off-topic somehow to talk about its details.. i'll try to write them back, on related thread, if required and if it was new.. BTW, it was _really_ of hardware knowledge.. ;) again, thank you. :) Best Regards, t.a.k On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Polytropon wrote: > Allow me a few additions: > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:45:59 -0400, Michael Powell wrote: > > Pressing the power button for 4 seconds as described is invoking the ACPI > > layer to stimulate call(s) down to the system BIOS. > > No. In most (but of course not all) default settings the > "long press" will forcedly (and with _no_ message to the OS) > turn off the system's power. > > The "short press" will emit the ACPI signal to the OS to > deal with the power-off sequence itself. > > Still it's possible to have a different programming for the > button. For example, it seems to be common to have this > button perform a "ACPI sleep", "ACPI hibernate" or "ACPI > powersafe" mode on "short press", and (as you mentioned) > the "ACPI power down" on long press. > > But as I said: _What_ the button actually does is defined > in the CMOS setup. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Configuration_and_Power_Interface#Power_states > > have a look at this page to find out more about the various > possible signals (power states). > > > > > Whatever is set in the > > BIOS wrt to power control and various power-savings modes are passed > through > > the ACPI layer. The problem with this is the acpi module in FreeBSD may, > or > > may not, be a perfect implementation for every possible piece of > hardware in > > existance. > > This statement especially applies in regards to laptops, where > closing the lid can also trigger a specific signal, and opening > the device again sends another signal. Vendors don't agree on > how to "properly" do this, so there are many different ACPI > implementations. > > % ls /boot/kernel/acpi* > /boot/kernel/acpi.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_ibm.ko* > /boot/kernel/acpi_aiboost.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_panasonic.ko* > /boot/kernel/acpi_asus.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_sony.ko* > /boot/kernel/acpi_dock.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_toshiba.ko* > /boot/kernel/acpi_fujitsu.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_video.ko* > /boot/kernel/acpi_hp.ko* /boot/kernel/acpi_wmi.ko* > > You can see from this example that FreeBSD only supports a > subset of what can be considered possible. Of course there > are many "fields of compatibility", but it may still result > in specific hardware not working properly -- mostly in the > area of laptops and their accessories (like docking stations). > > > > > The piece of that which really concerns me are individual > > manufactuer BIOS quirks can be just enough 'off' so as to misbehave even > when > > the FreeBSD acpi implentation is basically sound. > > Even though I did not experience that myself, it can be > considered possible. A sloppy ACPI implementation can > be the source of many kinds of trouble, even involving > such "simple" devices like a power button. > > > > > The jist of this is (IMHO > > here - YMMV) is I consider it a bad procedure to turn off a server as > you've > > described. > > Definitely. :-) > > > > > Use the shutdown command properly instead. I would never do what > > your coworker did to any of my servers. > > A mechanicl protection could prevent that. > > > > > Caveat being sometimes you have no > > other choice but to do a hard power-down. A hard power-down is done by > using > > the switch on the power supply, and not using the ACPI/BIOS from pressing > > the power switch on the front. > > This is also possible. Both this _and_ the default "forced power off" > (the "long press" in many defaults) equal the action of pulling the > power cord. > > > > > When you do have an 'uh-oh' like this, FreeBSD normally boots back into > an > > unclean file system with corresponding whinings and complaints about how > the > > file system(s) were not properly dismounted. > > This is an intended behaviour. TO prevent further damage and to > make data recovery possible (worst case), the system does not > try to "boot by all means", just to make the (clueless) user > happy. :-) > > > > > Normally a background fsck > > ensues after 60 seconds of idle. > > This _can_ be dangerous, because at this time, the system has > already been booted into a "somehow working" state. You should > ask yourself the question: Can I invest the time to have _no_ > background fsck (i. e., a foreground fsck which maybe will ask > prior to doing anything "heavy") to make sure my data is consistent, > because it is important data which _needs_ to be okay? In this > case, put background_fsck="NO" in /etc/rc.conf -- and wait. > > When using UFS, there _may_ be file system damages so severe > that fsck will _not_ correct them manually (which often leads > to data loss of important data that could have been saved if > the proper _user decision_ would have been taken place). This > will only happen in the "interactive mode" at system startup. > > > > > In your case whatever files were left open > > and not properly closed this background fsck, had it been allowed to run > and > > complete, would have cleaned this up. > > Maybe, maybe not. It highly depends on what actually happened, > and it's nearly impossible to find that out, especially when > there is no control about what the background fsck does (while > the system is already happily running and humming). > > > > > The problem starts when someone > > presses the power off button again, and again, before this process > completes. > > Using the power button ACPI/BIOS only compounds this situation. > > Correct. That's why the time to have fsck perform its task in > the foreground should be invested, at least after such an abrupt > action. > > > > > I would recommend you do NOT use the power button as you described above. > > Period. > > In case of _servers_, this button is commonly considered an > "emergency button" anyway, and therefor hardly used. :-) > > > > > In any event pay particular attention to that very first boot after > > an 'uh-oh' power off event. Look at top and watch for the background > fsck to > > kick off and complete, returning the machine to quiescent state BEFORE > you do > > ANYTHING else to it. This includes pressing the button on the front. > > The "doing anything else" can be the problem with a background fsck. > Let's say the server starts its services which start accessing the > partitions currently checked by fsck. Yes, I know, snapshots and all > this stuff. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. My additional > advice would be: Do not use a background fsck. If you had a power > failure (for whatever reason), take the time to make sure your system > boots into a verified state (NOT: boots into a questionable state, > tries to verify it during normal operations, and pretends "everything > is fine"). > > > > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >