Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 18:24:37 -0400 From: "illoai@gmail.com" <illoai@gmail.com> To: utisoft@gmail.com Cc: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, olli@lurza.secnetix.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about forcing fsck at boottime Message-ID: <d7195cff0904051524m5be3c143kd6539b021ec087be@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <b79ecaef0904051340v6ba08df4sa376a1ef57e3a7e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <b79ecaef0903310247o356fdfb8mdc8cd2c3621366ee@mail.gmail.com> <200903311657.n2VGvLE8010101@lurza.secnetix.de> <b79ecaef0904051340v6ba08df4sa376a1ef57e3a7e2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/4/5 Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com>: > 2009/3/31 Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>: >> Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> wrote: >> =A0> 2009/3/31 Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>: >> =A0> > >> =A0> > IMHO this background fsck isn't good idea at all >> =A0> >> =A0> Why? >> >> Google "background fsck damage". >> >> I was bitten by it myself, and I also recommend to turn >> background fsck off. =A0If your disks are large and you >> can't afford the fsck time, consider using ZFS, which >> has a lot of benefits besides not requiring fsck. >> >> Best regards >> =A0 Oliver >> > > Right... You were bitten by background fsck, what _exactly_ happened? > All the 'problems' here associated with bgfsck are referring to > FreeBSD 4 etc, or incredibly vague anecdotal evidence. Have you > googled for background fsck damage? Nothing (in the first two pages at > least) even suggests that background fsck causes damage. > > Erik Trulsson wrote: >> Normal PATA/SATA disks with write caching enabled (which is the default)= do >> not provide these guarantees. =A0Disabling write caching on will make th= em >> adhere to the assumptions that soft updates make, but at the cost of a >> severe performance penalty when writing to the disks. > >> In short therefore on a 'typical' PC you can fairly easily get errors on= a >> filesystem which background fsck cannot handle. > > What do you mean by handle? Sure, it won't fix them, but it'll at > least detect them. The chances of actually having a problem are slim, > anyway, and it won't cause any damage either. > > This is exactly my experience: maybe three times in years of various power failures and hardware barfs have I had the background fsck tell me to run fsck manually. And that is the entire extent of the "failure". The system was running normally, if a bit slowly from the fsck itself, and the worst result was a disappeared /var/db/pkg directory (which had nothing to do with fsck being in the background on restart). --=20 --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7195cff0904051524m5be3c143kd6539b021ec087be>