Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:09:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, grog@lemis.com, tlambert@primenet.com, mckusick@mckusick.com, mi@misha.privatelabs.com, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ru@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc] Message-ID: <200105151709.f4FH9XB53717@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010515120558.M59553@wantadilla.lemis.com> <20010514202707.B93481@xor.obsecurity.org> <200105150344.f4F3iVI45699@earth.backplane.com> <20010514205836B.jkh@osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
:Subject: Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Re: cvs commit: src/etc rc]
:Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:44:31 -0700 (PDT)
:
:> I have to say, just IMHO, that as much as I like the concept of a
:> background fsck, I will never ever in my life use the feature. I'll
:
:Well, there are fscks and there are fscks. It's my impression that
:*all* a background fsck on a snapshot will ever do is return free
:blocks to the freelist. That's it. It won't do any one of the dozens
:of other crazy things you've probably seen fsck do in cleaning up a
:badly scrogged filesystem and hence your fear, unless I'm smoking some
:unusually strong crack, is likely unwarranted.
:
:- JKordan
The problem isn't what the background fsck does... it's what happens
when a corrupted filesystem is mounted r/w and you only find out later
that fsck couldn't handle it.
-Matt
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200105151709.f4FH9XB53717>