Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:52:00 -0500 From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> To: David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> Cc: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: operation not permitted on entropy file Message-ID: <CA%2BtpaK2RC0w7Y4etxs%2Byx59_gAURNEtB38h=sV8pEFkBRWVFWQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20140811142707.GA10186@home.parts-unknown.org> References: <20140810070239.GA80734@home.parts-unknown.org> <20140810103119.GA26958@slackbox.erewhon.home> <20140810124433.da498898.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140810224038.GD24036@home.parts-unknown.org> <20140811101822.41851cc7.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140811142707.GA10186@home.parts-unknown.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 9:27 AM, David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> wrote: > > I pretty much followed the default installation. But when fsck was > doing its thing, I saw a lot of unexpected SU+J inconsistencies. So > I'm a little puzzled here: Someone posted that fsck uses journaling > Of course fsck only uses it when journaling is enabled. > (which seems very adventurous for something that shouldn't be needed > often) even when the filesystem doesn't normally. Try fsck'ing a nearly full TB FS on a production box that has had a dirty unmount and you will begin to appreciate the adventure a bit more. > And if I don't have > soft updates by default, then why are they being reported by fsck? > This statement doesn't make sense. Can you post the output you're seeing along with the mount options in play? > > And for reference, I notice that journaling decisions need to be made > *prior* to creating the filesystem. > Journaling decisions can be made basically at anytime the FS isn't mounted or mounted ro using tunefs(1). -- Adam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BtpaK2RC0w7Y4etxs%2Byx59_gAURNEtB38h=sV8pEFkBRWVFWQ>