Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 16:57:42 -0700 From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Background Fsck Message-ID: <200104162357.QAA55446@beastie.mckusick.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2001 11:38:50 %2B0200." <200104050938.f359ctI09858@Magelan.Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:38:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Subject: Re: Background Fsck To: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: mckusick@mckusick.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG On 5 Apr, Robert Watson wrote: Another usability question. Was wondering about the possibility of multiple background fsck's getting started at a time, et al, possibly due to bad behavior by the user. Can the user get shot in the foot in the following situations: [1-3] 4) They shutdown the machine while the background fsck is in progress. Bye, Alexander. The background fsck is using the soft updates system to make its changes to the filesystem. So, as with all the other concurrent changes going on, they are ordered so as to maintain filesystem consistency. Whether the system is shut down cleanly or abruptly while a background fsck is in progress, the filesystem will be recoverable. When a new background fsck is eventually started on the partially checked filesystem, it will simply pick up where the other one left off. Kirk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104162357.QAA55446>