Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:47:14 +0200 From: Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Sysinstall automatic filesystem size generation. Message-ID: <20050829204714.GC1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> In-Reply-To: <431362ED.9030800@mac.com> References: <20050829120415.GA1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <200508291836.j7TIaVEk013147@gw.catspoiler.org> <20050829185933.GB1462@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <431362ED.9030800@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Swiger wrote: >PS: Haven't we had this conversation before? Yes, indeed, and I don't want to reopen that issue since that would lead to no new insights (and since I don't have the time atm. to contribute anything I couldn't provide any stuff myself). I was just refuting the claim of "very robust" filesystem when power goes out in the context of 200GB consumer-grade hardware that this thread was talking about. I think until a satisfactory solution can be found (by making softupdates and/or a journalled filesystem as reliable as possible through mechanisms like write-request barriers and appropriate flushing at these) users who're running FreeBSD on end-consumer hardware (desktop PC as workstation or personal server) should be warned that softupdates does NOT work as described on their hardware and that the filesystem can easily be corrupted when the power goes out, no matter if softupdates is enabled or not. One often sees the "softupdates" argument being fielded by FreeBSD advocates, typically against Linux users with journalled fs, on web forums, usenet and other less authoritative (and knowledgable) places of discussion, and it is often presented as if it were some kind of magic bullet that makes filesystem corruption impossible. This simply is not so. mkb.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050829204714.GC1462>