Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 20:01:00 +0200 From: Tomas Zvala <tomas@zvala.cz> To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: volume management Message-ID: <461BD0DC.5070802@zvala.cz> In-Reply-To: <461BCF8A.3030307@freebsd.org> References: <461A5EC6.8010000@freebsd.org> <20070409154407.GA88621@harmless.hu> <evfqtt$n23$1@sea.gmane.org> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?461BD0DC.5070802>