Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 11:18:48 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Gore Jarold <gore_jarold@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dangers of delaying an fsck on busy fileserver ? Message-ID: <464F3178.1020909@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <620211.71116.qm@web63014.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <620211.71116.qm@web63014.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gore Jarold wrote: > --- Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> wrote: > > >> In an ideal world, the only consequence of delaying >> bgfsck is that >> not all filesystem blocks will be marked free that >> should be. So >> if you deleted a large tree of files before the >> crash, those blocks >> might still show up in use until bgfsck completes. > > > Thank you. Would _you_ do this with valuable data ? > Very good question =-) If you're using softupdates then any damage will have been done when the hard shutdown happens; bgfsck won't create any new damage. The biggest problem of bgfsck beyond the i/o slowness and near deadlocks that it can create (modulo the fixes that the Kostik is working on) is that if it does encounter damage that it can't fix automatically, it exits and leaves the filesystem inconsistent. So you need to keep a very close eye on your logs and check for this, then schedule downtime when it happens so you can babysit a full fsck. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?464F3178.1020909>