Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:04:58 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY Message-ID: <20080927.100458.74661341.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <588787159.20080927003750@takeda.tk> References: <765067435.20080926223557@takeda.tk> <20080927064417.GA43638@icarus.home.lan> <588787159.20080927003750@takeda.tk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully > > analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into > > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all > > scenarios. > > Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a > possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will > interfere with soft updates. Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080927.100458.74661341.sthaug>