Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:23:48 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 9.0 install and journaling Message-ID: <20111211002348.56497fde@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4EE3DA85.4070903@herveybayaustralia.com.au> References: <4EE32BB6.3020105@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112100755520.11994@wonkity.com> <4EE38454.3020307@otenet.gr> <4EE3D1F0.60500@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1112101509220.14596@wonkity.com> <4EE3DA85.4070903@herveybayaustralia.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:17:41 +1000 Da Rock wrote: > > SUJ speeds up the check a lot, seconds as opposed to minutes. If > > something happens to the journal, it falls back to a standard fsck. > But fsck needs to be run manually- I have users that can't do that, > and the filesystem corrupts. Ergo gjournal; it boots up and fixes on > the fly. So SU+J needs a manual fsck before booting proper or can it > just boot and be done? It's not very different; gjournal and SU both attempt to leave the filesystem in an coherent state, but both still need a preen to recover lost space. In either case the preen can fail requiring a full fsck. Journalled SU make SU behave more like gjournal in that you can do a fast foreground check which avoids the lengthy background fsck and avoids deferring the handling of unexpected inconsistencies to the next boot.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111211002348.56497fde>