Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:46:14 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY Message-ID: <200809271646.m8RGkEIt075241@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <20080927.100458.74661341.sthaug@nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > [...] > > > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully > > > analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into > > > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all > > > scenarios. > > > > Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a > > possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will > > interfere with soft updates. > > Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always > disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too. Just a "me too" here. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200809271646.m8RGkEIt075241>