From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 25 13:24:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB8F91065670 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:24:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feld@feld.me) Received: from feld.me (unknown [IPv6:2607:f4e0:100:300::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858F18FC19 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:24:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=feld.me; s=blargle; h=Message-Id:From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:To:Content-Type; bh=fq/+7hwgJBa+J+xmGHdJqOHgJT++g8MPL8t5QrAq1tM=; b=kziFl88JxizE07TX8K4uOnbU/+Wj9uFLuYoAHRHVmta/XQvPSSU3PhyGuR3+k1aU/U5sUJ+eYI4Cv4l7N/JcDjfFCpMKgqmJ4rbZtzQ/ryhqXYzt9Dy12yOdGT+EzMhy; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=mwi1.coffeenet.org) by feld.me with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SXuV8-000Ma3-Dr for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Fri, 25 May 2012 08:24:19 -0500 Received: from feld@feld.me by mwi1.coffeenet.org (Archiveopteryx 3.1.4) with esmtpa id 1337952252-3288-3287/5/26; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:24:12 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 08:24:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Mark Felder Message-Id: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.64 (FreeBSD) X-SA-Score: -1.0 Subject: UFS SUJ and fsck questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:24:19 -0000 Hi guys, I'm building out a highly available storage backend with HAST+NFS on UFS. So far I've encountered a node going down and the filesystem being dirty, so the other side won't mount it automatically. I've resolved this issue with the following before the mount: fsck -C -t ufs -y /dev/hast/${disk} However, the problem is that on a disk nearly 1TB in size it will take a long time to fsck and the failover won't be as smooth. SUJ would fit the bill here pretty well. My main issue is not understanding the interaction between SUJ and fsck. If I simply try to mount a fs with SUJ, it will do the SUJ magic if necessary and move on. But what if it's damaged beyond what SUJ can handle and needs a real fsck? Can I use the same procedure? Will executing `fsck -C` against an SUJ enabled filesystem that hasn't run the SUJ journal yet do that first and exit if the journal replay was successful? If not, does anyone have any ideas on how I can detect that automatically so I can get the filesystem mounted cleanly without human intervention? Thanks!