Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:13:38 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dangerous situation with shutdown process Message-ID: <20050716171338.GF752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> In-Reply-To: <1121530912.17757.32.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> References: <20050715224650.GA48516@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <200507152342.j6FNg5Tx015427@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <20050716133710.GA71580@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <20050716141630.GB752@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <1121530912.17757.32.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Mather wrote: >on reboot. (Actually, what I find to be more inconvenient is the >resynchronisation time needed for my geom_mirror, which takes a lot >longer than a fsck.) I understand that fsck delays for large file >systems is the major impetus behind the journalling work, not as a fix >for a perceived data consistency problem. Well... I have lost a few (ca. 3) UFS filesystems due to power loss or a kernel crash in the past but interestingly those were all on SCSI (and in the pre-softupdates era, so mounted with sync metadata updates, where this Shouldn't Happen[tm] either..) I've also seen ext2fs (which doesn't have safeguards against fs corruption) on Linux zapped often by power loss and haven't seen a statistically higher number of corrupted ext2fs than ufs. So the whole thing is a bit hard to quantify. However, I'm all for reducing the possibility of corruption when it could be done, programmatically. mkb.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050716171338.GF752>