Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 14:13:20 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Jason Arnaute <non_secure@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stress testing the UFS2 filesystem Message-ID: <446F7860.4060705@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060520192546.88787.qmail@web50913.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20060520192546.88787.qmail@web50913.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?446F7860.4060705>