From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 15 14:07:07 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52FF16A5F9 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 14:07:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd@lordcow.org) Received: from smtp1.uct.ac.za (smtp1.uct.ac.za [137.158.128.183]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE1E43D78 for ; Mon, 15 May 2006 14:07:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsd@lordcow.org) Received: from [137.158.128.125] (helo=anubis.uct.ac.za) by smtp1.uct.ac.za with esmtp (Exim 4.30; FreeBSD) id 1Ffdil-000GQZ-VB for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 15 May 2006 16:06:51 +0200 Received: from lhc.phy.uct.ac.za ([137.158.37.93]) by anubis.uct.ac.za with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ffdil-0004c2-Ai for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 15 May 2006 16:06:51 +0200 Received: from lordcow by lhc.phy.uct.ac.za with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Ffdim-0002IK-Ok for stable@freebsd.org; Mon, 15 May 2006 16:06:52 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 16:06:52 +0200 From: gareth To: stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20060515140652.GA8009@lordcow.org> Mail-Followup-To: stable@freebsd.org References: <20060515120057.GA4759@lordcow.org> <20060515125459.GV98577@e-Gitt.NET> <20060515132124.GA7228@lordcow.org> <20060515134630.GW98577@e-Gitt.NET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060515134630.GW98577@e-Gitt.NET> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Cc: Subject: Re: fsck X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 14:07:26 -0000 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).