From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 6 18:12:13 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 6E21A1065770 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:12:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@googlemail.com) Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.24]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87A68FC08 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:12:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@googlemail.com) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 4so513917eyf.7 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:12:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=qF6xA0t5Q8uMHkbtk/Z+SGfytGzE48zQqUT0n2U2UkM=; b=gQdlSvWjaOdLYsUQBCU7/R452mpvrFe8PVxuJ1iPy7AYrlbDO2yOWb86LuJ1jND1X1 W7y4aGjH4tV1hGpMHT0dgvtUS+GFsNzcMLWb6iFLXVqCc87GDk9HTRCU4XRCGj4KmK7u Zgj+DczIjcBSy0ONgR5a43sjEEDtXUSsY0F7Y= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hGjec4u61FnnIkiC7ztRRBADZTWNsh8zogpSkjZit8ZUfVl4wFloQX4bAiZgUCdImL ppporSFhoa0vbLoQZU2plbNdKOLtspX+SUgdzzi+h5EU9LVqs5QkkKn030Zmvvp0XruF zF9x95TGr8tJpm+TfkcsH/NsCt10OsuGnXx7w= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.11.13 with SMTP id 13mr1442127ebk.48.1239041531732; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:12:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090406001614.304360d6@gluon.draftnet> References: <200903311657.n2VGvLE8010101@lurza.secnetix.de> <20090406001614.304360d6@gluon.draftnet> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:12:11 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Bruce Cran , olli@lurza.secnetix.de, wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl, FreeBSD Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Subject: Re: Question about forcing fsck at boottime X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: utisoft@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:12:13 -0000 2009/4/6 Bruce Cran : > On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:40:52 +0100 > Chris Rees wrote: > >> 2009/3/31 Oliver Fromme : >> > Chris Rees wrote: >> > =A0> 2009/3/31 Wojciech Puchar : >> > =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. >> > > http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=3Dbackground+fsck+corruption > > You'll find the first few results are about panics during background > fsck resulting in an endless cycle of boot-panic-reboot, which don't > occur with foreground fsck. And at least the first result is from 6.x. > > -- > Bruce Cran > So... Is the background fsck causing damage or corruption? The answer to that is NO. It's a consequence of reading a bad directory structure, which happened anyway. Quoting jpd on this same issue, emphasis added: > So far we only have *your word* for *vague problems* and *speculated caus= es*. > So your best bets so far are to investigate, and lending a hand to the > fs people with ironing out a possible bug or two. Seriously, this conversation is full of crap, and only makes one of FreeBSDs incredibly useful features look bad with no evidence. Can no-one can come up with a reply either quoting a mailing list or giving the circumstances when: a) Background fsck caused data CORRUPTION _and_ b) A foreground fsck would not have done the same ? Anything else is sidestepping the question, and spreading FUD. Anyone? Perhaps I should CC one of the filesystem developers to get them to reassure you all? I don't think they'd be too pleased at people saying their design is flawed. It's not. Chris --=20 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?