From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 8 09:58:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AFF10656A8 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:58:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-questions@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD198FC26 for ; Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:58:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NHwpp-0007Ob-CZ for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:58:21 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:58:21 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:58:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:57:58 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <4B1DF953.4050504@sprinthost.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090928) In-Reply-To: <4B1DF953.4050504@sprinthost.ru> Sender: news Subject: Re: FreeBSD is too filesystem errors sensitive X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:58:24 -0000 cronfy wrote: > Hello. > > Please forgive me for probably a very stupid question. But why is > FreeBSD so sensitive to filesystem errors that it ends up with panics > like 'freeing free block' or 'ffs_valloc: dup alloc'? I just can't get > it. Failed to allocate vnode? Go allocate another one! Freeing free > block? Leave it free then! I understand these situations should never > happen, but the hell why is it required to panic and kill everything > that would be working happily even if something very disasterous happen > to /backup partition, in example? > > Would be very appreciated if someone could explain that... thanks. Probably because UFS is not designed to be a backup file system but a working one :) All those errors indicate file system corruption. To protect other data from getting corrupted (e.g. by invalid pointers or calculations), the kernel panics.