From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 27 05:14:15 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F301065687 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A9D8FC19 for ; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.dyndns.org) Received: from OMTA13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.52]) by QMTA02.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KgWY1a00H17UAYkA2hEEB9; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:14 +0000 Received: from koitsu.dyndns.org ([67.180.253.227]) by OMTA13.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id KhED1a0084v8bD78ZhEDVh; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:14 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=TxirYYpeSEAA:10 a=QO6ccaido9wA:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=QycZ5dHgAAAA:8 a=inZtLy6cd8y2bcjepY8A:9 a=efwyIIf47CVO53V7Upy5Hfgc21AA:4 a=EoioJ0NPDVgA:10 a=LY0hPdMaydYA:10 Received: by icarus.home.lan (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 13A3AC9432; Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:14:13 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: Derek Kuli??ski Message-ID: <20080927051413.GA42700@icarus.home.lan> References: <20080921213426.GA13923@0lsen.net> <20080921215203.GC9494@icarus.home.lan> <20080921215930.GA25826@0lsen.net> <20080921220720.GA9847@icarus.home.lan> <249873145.20080926213341@takeda.tk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <249873145.20080926213341@takeda.tk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Clint Olsen Subject: Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:14:15 -0000 On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:33:41PM -0700, Derek Kuli??ski wrote: > Hello Jeremy, > > Sunday, September 21, 2008, 3:07:20 PM, you wrote: > > > Consider using background_fsck="no" in /etc/rc.conf if you prefer the > > old behaviour. Otherwise, boot single-user then do the fsck. > > Actually what's the advantage of having fsck run in background if it > isn't capable of fixing things? > Isn't it more dangerous to be it like that? i.e. administrator might > not notice the problem; also filesystem could break even further... This question should really be directed at a set of different folks, e.g. actual developers of said stuff (UFS2 and soft updates in specific), because it's opening up a can of worms. I believe it has to do with the fact that there is much faith given to UFS2 soft updates -- the ability to background fsck allows the user to boot their system and have it up and working (able to log in, etc.) in a much shorter amount of time[1]. It makes the assumption that "everything will work just fine", which is faulty. It also gives the impression of a journalled filesystem, which UFS2 soft updates are not. gjournal(8) on the other hand, is, and doesn't require fsck at all[2]. I also think this further adds fuel to the "so why are we enabling soft updates by default and using UFS2 as a filesystem again?" fire. I'm sure someone will respond to this with "So use ZFS and shut up". *sigh* [1]: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2004-December/069114.html [2]: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2008-April/173501.html -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |