From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 14 19:41:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE10B4C for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:41:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwmaillists@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76E5421DC for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:41:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so6603697wgh.27 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:41:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IyotbYbkab5qsBNoxgyFA7FaRFv1Nj5xApYivURHBqA=; b=e7zl9P5GYA9TcE/VUOlzuP4WNn5NMLtUSHc+/XnmvhhoiGl633ucUt+UBwmJ7vZxHf 0IiSHbfJ3pqfsctfSl3w4KHHriZDRMRgCazdiwRwkntJNSJEKMR0G9dvWfnzRVTLClEy edGmaxdWRwXOBM+2kIG0/EgxLWPAN8/5sAhniUwyLQfRQmb9GVo2NZ+gAbTuTLFNj88e US/xSYJajW28m3taiNHIz+53MLoH9NLXxs/KjJGqxT/2pIgpoJ0CtBxWhimciCa0U9mX obbQUcUiyOTvjF6CXCy2QUtN3SxU15MlbSu+7iRtLQNbOfNvBfMgPhrMSvTDRBAekcFE uK4Q== X-Received: by 10.194.81.135 with SMTP id a7mr3010930wjy.56.1381779686692; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gumby.homeunix.com (87-194-105-247.bethere.co.uk. [87.194.105.247]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e1sm37332089wij.6.2013.10.14.12.41.26 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 20:41:25 +0100 From: RW To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SU+J Lost files after a power failure Message-ID: <20131014204125.6cc4a31e@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: References: <525A6831.5070402@gmail.com> <20131014133953.58f74659@gumby.homeunix.com> <525C1D1C.9050708@gmail.com> <525C2554.7080203@pchotshots.com> <525C2FBC.4080808@cran.org.uk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.19; amd64-portbld-freebsd10.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:41:28 -0000 On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:48:18 -0700 Charles Swiger wrote: > Yes. Without journalling, you'd normally perform the full > timeconsuming fsck in the foreground. Journalling removes the need for the background fsck which only recovers lost space. > With journalling, it should be > able to do a journal replay to restore the filesystem to an OK state, My understanding is that the journal does nothing to restore the filesystem other than keep track of orphaned memory. In all other respect it's the job of soft-updates to keep the filesystem in an OK state. When it doesn't you need a foreground check. > but sometimes that doesn't restore consistency, in which case it > usually fires off a background fsck rather than the foreground fsck. I think if the journal fails, you would really need to run at least a foreground preen, maybe a full fsck.