Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:58:14 +0600 From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Jan Srzednicki <winfried@student.agh.edu.pl>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: background fsck did not create lost+found Message-ID: <20030123015813.A1653@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <p05200f0bba54a4857426@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:43:37PM -0500 References: <200301221813.h0MIDUTF040121@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301221916470.22474-100000@student.uci.agh.edu.pl> <20030123005315.A97248@iclub.nsu.ru> <p05200f0bba54a4857426@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there! On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:43:37PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > > > Would that be a big problem to allow some fsck option not > > > > > to erase all these softupdates-pending inodes, but to put > > > > > them in lost+found as usual? > > > > > > > > It certainly couldn't be done with the background fsck, > > > > because background fsck works on a snapshot and not the > > > > running filesystem; thus, it cannot make any allocations -- it > > > > can only deallocate things. > > > > > > Still, in case you know some of your important files can be lost, > > > you can boot the system to single user and run foreground fsck. > > > >this is not an option if the system was rebooted because of power > >loss or kernel panic > > Can't you just set the rc.conf option to not-do the background fsck? I can but the whole purpose of background fsck (faster startup times) will be lost. /fjoe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030123015813.A1653>