From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 18:28:21 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C8C16A40A for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tomas@zvala.cz) Received: from neptune.request.cz (fox.murder.cz [62.24.64.129]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FAA13C4D5 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tomas@zvala.cz) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r6l254.net.upc.cz [89.176.11.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fox@murder.cz) by neptune.request.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36504800081 for ; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:00:08 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <461BD0DC.5070802@zvala.cz> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:01:00 +0200 From: Tomas Zvala User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org References: <461A5EC6.8010000@freebsd.org> <20070409154407.GA88621@harmless.hu> <20070410111957.GA85578@garage.freebsd.pl> <461B75B2.40201@fer.hr> <20070410114115.GB85578@garage.freebsd.pl> <20070410161445.GA18858@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <20070410162129.GI85578@garage.freebsd.pl> <20070410172604.GA21036@keira.kiwi-computer.com> <461BCC85.2080900@freebsd.org> <20070410174607.GA26432@harmless.hu> <461BCF8A.3030307@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <461BCF8A.3030307@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: volume management X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:28:21 -0000 Eric Anderson wrote: > > I think the only time this might even be an option is under very > minimal conditions. As Pawel said, if your FS is corrupt, you'll get > hosed down the line. > > Personally, what I would want to prevent, is having a server go down > due to one file system having an issue, when it is serving (or using) > many more file systems. I currently have a box with 5 10Tb file > systems on it, and when I mount a 6th file system (2Tb) which I *know* > has metadata inconsistencies that fsck can't fix, I don't want it to > take down all 50Tb of good solid storage. What I want is a blast to > my logs, the erroneous file system to be evicted from further damage > (mount read-only and marked as dirty) and trickle an i/o error to any > processes trying to write to it. Even unmounting it would be ok, but > that gets nasty with NFS servers and other things. > > > Eric > This might as well be a dumb question... But ... Why don't we let the root choose, what is supposed to happen? That makes most sense to me and even though i'm no fbsd hacker, it seems to me as not a big deal to implement. Tomas