Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:34:13 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> To: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Question about forcing fsck at boottime Message-ID: <b79ecaef0904070234m1ad0a4f0uf892e1faccf1c4ef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <47952575-35FD-4733-9262-A6DAA3ACB762@lafn.org> References: <b79ecaef0903310247o356fdfb8mdc8cd2c3621366ee@mail.gmail.com> <200903311657.n2VGvLE8010101@lurza.secnetix.de> <b79ecaef0904051340v6ba08df4sa376a1ef57e3a7e2@mail.gmail.com> <20090406001614.304360d6@gluon.draftnet> <b79ecaef0904061112w75d8bd4ep1388d8d9fe2c4261@mail.gmail.com> <47952575-35FD-4733-9262-A6DAA3ACB762@lafn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:12, Chris Rees wrote: > >> Can >> no-one can come up with a reply either quoting a mailing list or >> giving the circumstances when: >> >> a) Background fsck caused data CORRUPTION >> >> _and_ >> >> b) A foreground fsck would not have done the same >> >> ? 2009/4/6 Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org>: > Yes. =A0When background FSCK first became standard I let it go that way o= n my > production servers. =A0The first time we had a power issue that resulted = in a > shutdown of a server it tried to come back up when the power was restored= . > =A0I have a large number of daemons that rely on configure files and othe= r > information that is reasonably frequently updated. =A0Some of those files= were > in the process of being updated when it shut down. =A0As a result backgro= und > FSCK did not get around to those files till much after the daemons were u= p > and running (or trying to run). =A0Most of them worked ok at the beginnin= g. > =A0However after FSCK resolved the problems, the underlying files changed= . > =A0The daemons couldn't function at that point. > > While a simple reboot at that point fixed everything, that caused yet > another outage for users. <snip> So, the answer is NO, it does NOT cause data CORRUPTION. A simple reboot solved it? Really, you're advocating guaranteed extended downtime every time there's a power outage, compared with a slight chance of a slightly longer downtime while every other time it comes almost straight up. Any more replies, please, read the damned question. > I doubt that the concept of background FSCK is broken and I suspect that = the implementation is good too. _Thank_ you Chris --=20 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b79ecaef0904070234m1ad0a4f0uf892e1faccf1c4ef>