From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat May 20 20:13:36 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D1C316A428
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sat, 20 May 2006 20:13:36 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D3143D46
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sat, 20 May 2006 20:13:33 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4KKDRv1082468;
	Sat, 20 May 2006 14:13:32 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Message-ID: <446F7860.4060705@samsco.org>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:13:20 -0600
From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jason Arnaute <non_secure@yahoo.com>
References: <20060520192546.88787.qmail@web50913.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20060520192546.88787.qmail@web50913.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed 
	version=3.1.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.org
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Stress testing the UFS2 filesystem
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 20:13:36 -0000

Jason Arnaute wrote:
>>The issue that he is testing is how well the
> 
> filesystem behaves when
> 
>>you arbitrarily damage it and then run fsck
> 
> (ideally, fsck should
> 
>>detect all of the damage and repair it).  He seems
> 
> to have found cases
> 
>>where fsck does not detect and repair the damage,
> 
> leading to panics at
> 
>>runtime.
> 
> 
> 
> Heh.  You need to run a test to find out that bg fsck
> causes problems ?  Here - I'll save you some time:
> 
> if involves_snapshots_in_any_way
> then
>   it's totally FUBAR
> fi
> 
> Snapshots have _never_ been stable or suitable for
> production.  Ever.  (going on 2+ years now...)
> 
> This wouldn't be such a problem, except that BG fsck,
> turned on by default, ensures that all users of
> FreeBSD, everywhere, are using snapshots, whether they
> understand what a bad idea that is or not.
> 
> On the plus side, FreeBSD does have a nice new mascot
> - see it's more shiny now.  See ?
> 

Yes, you have a point that snapshots have been broken in
the past.  A lot of work has been done recently to fix
them, as well as quotas.  Your trollish digs only disrespect
all the work being done, and they are not welcome here.

Scott