Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:12:48 +0800 From: Julius Huang <juliushuang@gmail.com> To: Freebsd Stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: removing external usb hdd without unmounting causes reboot? Message-ID: <02A0BEC2-072B-43B6-AED3-5B3F02B82B20@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070719130252.6880b967@localhost> References: <200707181703.07480.idiotbg@gmail.com> <200707181541.l6IFf4ht051775@lurza.secnetix.de> <20070719130252.6880b967@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
How Mac OS X handle this? Method, tricks, code, etc...
Does Linux reboot when this happen?
One can argue the kernel is so different between OS X, Linux and FBSD,
but it is still better to compare WIN vs FBSD (or NTFS vs UFS).
Or may be I am wrong.
BTW,
I hardly ever put a USB Disk on our FBSD Servers,
but never had problem disconnect USB/Firewire Disk on my Powerbook.
Julius
On Thu 19 Jul 2007, at 11:02, Norberto Meijome wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:41:04 +0200 (CEST)
> Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote:
>
>> If you have problems remembering,
>
> This is very interesting thread indeed....
>
> I have found that mounting remote SMB shares will panic the kernel
> too, but
> only if i try to access it while 'gone' . If I remember correctly,
> if i thread
> carefully around it, i can manage to shutdown everything and it
> will only panic
> at the very last minute when the kernel tries to unmount.
>
> And, from my point of view, the explanation 'well, don't remove
> your mounted
> devices without unmounting them first' is rubbish - the problem is not
> necessarily users removing them, but ALL the reasons that could
> cause an
> unwanted and unplanned removal. Like a network outage in the case
> of smbfs. or
> someone killing the power on a USB device. I can't see why the
> whole kernel
> should die on you. Yes, i understand there are architectural
> reasons for this -
> then the architecture is not right anymore, i think.
>
>> another work-around
>> is to use the auto mounter daemon (amd(8)). It umounts
>> file systems automatically that are not in use.
>> Another nice feature of amd(8) is that you don't have
>> to mount the file system either -- Simply plug the USB
>> stick in, then access it, and amd(8) will automatically
>> mount it for you.
>
>
> Now, something I dont understand - amd runs
> at user level, and it mounts filesystems, and nothing dies when the
> filesystems
> go away (other than the obvious cases for the applications trying
> to write to
> the FS in question). Doesn't amd , at some point , have to tell the
> kernel
> 'please mount this filesystem' here or there? Isn't the kernel
> STILL involved
> in all this? and why doesnt the kernel panic when the FS goes away?
>
> The same goes for hald - it doesn't work flawlessly, but it does
> the trick, and
> i cant recall an instance when it crashed the kernel.
>
> re. USB disks, could we not by default use amd to mount USB
> devices? It seems
> the obvious native replacement for hald + polkitd + dbus I use in
> XFCE with
> Thunar on my laptop...
>
> TIA!
> _________________________
> {Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
>
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by
> incompetence.
>
> I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery
> when wet.
> Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You
> have been
> Warned.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-
> unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?02A0BEC2-072B-43B6-AED3-5B3F02B82B20>