Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:28:02 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Adam Strohl <adams-freebsd@ateamsystems.com> Subject: Re: Backups with 9-STABLE -- Options? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1206101212410.77095@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD4D42B.4030705@denninger.net> References: <4FD3AD35.3090301@denninger.net> <4FD4B9AC.6090604@ateamsystems.com> <4FD4BCA1.2010502@denninger.net> <4FD4BEC1.1020201@ateamsystems.com> <4FD4D42B.4030705@denninger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012, Karl Denninger wrote: > 1. Is it REALLY safer to have the root filesystem run WITHOUT > softupdates? (As was previous default practice) The FAQ has an entry which has been there for a while. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/disks.html#SAFE-SOFTUPDATES > 2. In order of risk of data loss what are the risks and options for SU, > SU+J and neither? Neither exposes you to huge time delays on a > post-crash boot due to the fsck requirement, but SU can expose you to a > failed background fsck and thus get you the huge time delay too. Since > SU+J eliminates this the only argument for NOT using it is that it's > more dangerous to your data than running without either or with SU > alone. Is this true? AFAIK, they should be the same as far as filesystem integrity, it's just that SU+J cuts down the time spent waiting for fsck. > 3. Is there intent to fix dump -L with SU+J? Yes, and there have been commits in the last few months. http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/ufs/ufs/inode.h?sortby=date&view=log > If so, is there a projection on when? Sorry, no idea.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1206101212410.77095>