From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 24 21:21:15 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B09B616A4CE for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:21:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C85243D3F for ; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:21:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3OLMPVd015762; Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:22:26 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <426C0D72.9090707@samsco.org> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 15:19:46 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Buelow References: <426BA8FA.3080602@samsco.org> <426BAAE4.1040606@incubus.de> In-Reply-To: <426BAAE4.1040606@incubus.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: Palle Girgensohn Subject: Re: background_fsck=no does not work? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:21:15 -0000 Matthias Buelow wrote: > Scott Long wrote: > > >>not always be clean. Softupdates (hopefully) means that it will be >>consistent and recoverable, but what you're seeing here is normal and > > > Why "hopefully"? Aren't people convinced that it works correctly? > > mkb. Whether or not its algoritms are correct or the VM and VFS layers properly support it, modern IDE write caches pretty much make write orderings a crapshoot. Scott