Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>