From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 27 11:20:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7115116A4CE for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:20:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lancia.kaluga.ru (lancia.kaluga.ru [62.148.128.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8470E43D54 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:20:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@merdin.com) Received: from localhost (net.stencil.kaluga.ru [62.148.158.62]) by lancia.kaluga.ru (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9RBKjnn033154 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:49 +0400 (MSD) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by [127.0.0.1] with ESMTP (SpamPal v1.581) sender ; 27 Oct 2004 15:20:46 +0400 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:20:45 +0400 From: Pavel Merdine X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <162265023.20041027152045@merdin.com> To: Don Lewis In-Reply-To: <200410262006.i9QK67t7018640@gw.catspoiler.org> References: <1357841854.20041026213409@merdin.com> <200410262006.i9QK67t7018640@gw.catspoiler.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1251 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re[4]: panic again X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:20:54 -0000 Hello , Maybe I was wrong, but looking at the FFS code I see that softupdates does not work without -f : if (fs->fs_clean == 0) { fs->fs_flags |= FS_UNCLEAN; if (ronly || (mp->mnt_flag & MNT_FORCE)) { printf( "WARNING: %s was not properly dismounted\n", fs->fs_fsmnt); } else { printf("WARNING: R/W mount of %s denied. Filesystem is not clean - run fsck\n", fs->fs_fsmnt); error = EPERM; goto out; } } The clean flag does not seem to be affected by softupdates. My practice tells me that fsck is always required after unclean shutdown if I dont use -f. So what is the purpose of softupdates then? I repeat that maybe I'm wrong. But I just didn't see it working. Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 12:06:07 AM, you wrote: > On 26 Oct, Pavel Merdine wrote: >> Sorry, I didn't explain my point thoroughly. I meant non-working >> softupdates on non-faulty hardware. Press "Reset" on busy server with >> many drives, mount -f (softupdates mount?) and you will surely get a >> panic in an hour. > mount -f does not enable softupdates. The mount(8) man page says: > -f Forces the revocation of write access when trying to downgrade a > filesystem mount status from read-write to read-only. Also > forces the R/W mount of an unclean filesystem (dangerous; use > with caution). > In this case, dangerous means that further file system damage and/or a > system panic can happen. > Softupdates is enabled and disabled with > tunefs -n enable > and > tunefs -n disable > on an unmounted file system. -- / Pavel Merdine