Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 08:14:49 -0800 From: Derek Kulinski <takeda@takeda.tk> To: CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl>, freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much reliable is UFS2+SU/J Message-ID: <0affce66-f00b-4f16-9a57-4a3d71eedd99@email.android.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFYkXjk%2BuP=Y=x1dsbORcWuH8N7sAy4Zc1Zbb6GXhFjsG2BUnw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFYkXjk%2BuP=Y=x1dsbORcWuH8N7sAy4Zc1Zbb6GXhFjsG2BUnw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
CeDeROM <cederom@tlen.pl> wrote: >Hello :-) > >Some time ago I have switched to UFS2+SU/J. However on a crash I have >found some issues on a /home partition that SU/Journal seems to have >missed. This caused applications to misbehave or use default >configuration. Running "fsck" showed that filesystem is clean, but >running "fsck -fy" found some issues. This happended at least three >times in a short period of time, so I started to wonder how much >reliable if UFS2+SU/J? Should I expect some fixes in this area or >thing will stay like this forever for UFS2+SU/J? When I tried it first myself I found corrupted data even after clean shutdown. I turned off journaling. It was SSD, so fsck is very fast. Later I learned that SU/J is a bad idea on SSD. Not sure if that's why I got corrupted disk each time or because it writes to disk more. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0affce66-f00b-4f16-9a57-4a3d71eedd99>