Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:06:52 +0200 From: gareth <bsd@lordcow.org> To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fsck Message-ID: <20060515140652.GA8009@lordcow.org> In-Reply-To: <20060515134630.GW98577@e-Gitt.NET> References: <20060515120057.GA4759@lordcow.org> <20060515125459.GV98577@e-Gitt.NET> <20060515132124.GA7228@lordcow.org> <20060515134630.GW98577@e-Gitt.NET>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon 2006-05-15 (15:46), Oliver Brandmueller wrote: > OK, I was not clear enough: During normal operations what's on the disk > and the view of the system to the filesystem are not necessarily the > same - this is especially true for open files. No matter how long it > takes for fsck to run, a r/w opened file will almost ever be in an > inconsistent state. > > Again: fsck is not for r/w mounted filesystems (except with -B for > filesystems that support it - namely ONLY UFS2!). If you use fsck in > traditional mode you will get unexpected results. And although fsck > tries very hard to keep you from breaking things badly, you have a good > chance to damage your filesystems if you use it improperly (no, I won't > try if -y or -f will force a check on a mounted partition - I still need > my filesystems). > > Again, very loud and clear: DON'T DO THIS. > > After telling you, fsck is not suuposed to be run on r/w mounted > filesystems in that way, I guess we can agree there's no room for a > discussion like that, OK? I mean, you don't use the hammer for screws, > do you? ok, i understand that it's not meant to be run on a mounted FS. i just used to do that on my (linux) FS's non-evasively as a rough check that everything was still ok. thanx, i see now that it can give unexpected results, i was just initially interested in why it was showing this now, whereas before it wasn't (in a roughly correlated way with the increase in power failures here).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060515140652.GA8009>