From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 27 08:05:01 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 BCD7410656D0
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:05:01 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BA0D28FC13
	for <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:05:00 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: (qmail 97203 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2008 08:04:58 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33)
	by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 27 Sep 2008 08:04:58 -0000
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:04:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20080927.100458.74661341.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <588787159.20080927003750@takeda.tk>
References: <765067435.20080926223557@takeda.tk>
	<20080927064417.GA43638@icarus.home.lan>
	<588787159.20080927003750@takeda.tk>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
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 <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:05:01 -0000

> > 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