Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:58:14 +0600
From:      Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru>
To:        Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>
Cc:        Jan Srzednicki <winfried@student.agh.edu.pl>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: background fsck did not create lost+found
Message-ID:  <20030123015813.A1653@iclub.nsu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <p05200f0bba54a4857426@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:43:37PM -0500
References:  <200301221813.h0MIDUTF040121@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301221916470.22474-100000@student.uci.agh.edu.pl> <20030123005315.A97248@iclub.nsu.ru> <p05200f0bba54a4857426@[128.113.24.47]>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
hi, there!

On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 02:43:37PM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:

> >  > > > Would that be a big problem to allow some fsck option not
> >  > > > to erase all these softupdates-pending inodes, but to put
> >  > > > them in lost+found as usual?
> >  > >
> >  > > It certainly couldn't be done with the background fsck,
> >  > > because background fsck works on a snapshot and not the
> >  > > running filesystem; thus, it cannot make any allocations -- it
> >  > > can only deallocate things.
> >  >
> >  > Still, in case you know some of your important files can be lost,
> >  > you can boot the system to single user and run foreground fsck.
> >
> >this is not an option if the system was rebooted because of power
> >loss or kernel panic
> 
> Can't you just set the rc.conf option to not-do the background fsck?

I can but the whole purpose of background fsck (faster startup times)
will be lost.

/fjoe


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030123015813.A1653>