From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 16 14:56:24 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D1F63C for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888988FC12 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAGEuK71074415; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:56:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qAGEuKP2074412; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:56:20 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:56:20 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Gary Aitken Subject: Re: 9.0 crash, ssd or filesystem problem? In-Reply-To: <50A602AB.2060307@dreamchaser.org> Message-ID: References: <50A53FF1.7050806@dreamchaser.org> <50A602AB.2060307@dreamchaser.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 16 Nov 2012 07:56:20 -0700 (MST) Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:24 -0000 On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Gary Aitken wrote: >>> ~$ gpart show ada0 >>> => 34 250069613 ada0 GPT (119G) >>> 34 128 1 freebsd-boot (64k) >>> 162 41943040 2 freebsd-ufs (20G) / >>> 41943202 1048576 3 freebsd-swap (512M) swap >>> 42991778 8388608 4 freebsd-ufs (4.0G) /var >>> 51380386 4194304 5 freebsd-ufs (2.0G) /tmp >>> 55574690 192216088 6 freebsd-ufs (91G) /usr >>> 247790778 2278869 - free - (1.1G) >> >> It would not cause this problem, but those partitions are not aligned. >> That would only affect speed, not reliability. > > geezes, it's not even on a 4K boundary from the get-go; > not sure how that happened. > let-alone the 1M boundary I just learned about. That's a normal install. It's fine for 512-byte devices. I have other suggestions too, but let's save that until the problem is fixed.