background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock: bad size)

[Kirk McKusick]

> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:48:58 -0400
> From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com>
> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick at mckusick.com>
> CC: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd at jdc.parodius.com>, fs at freebsd.org
> Subject: background fsck considered harmful? (Re: panic: handle_written_inodeblock:
>  bad size)
> X-ASK-Info: Message Queued (2010/07/20 09:49:10)
> X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by User (2010/07/20 10:28:39)
> 
> 20.07.2010 11:44, Kirk McKusick ÎÁÐÉÓÁ×(ÌÁ):
> > Adding it to all the panic's will be a lot of work,
> > but I agree would be useful. I will look into doing so when I
> > get a chance.
> >
> > 	Kirk McKusick
> >    
> How about disabling background fsck in a default install? It seems to be 
> the consensus here, that my troubles were due to fsck not fixing the 
> file-system properly reboot after reboot...
> 
> Yours,
> 
>     -mi

Certainly disabling background fsck will eliminate that from your
possible set of issues and may prevent a recurrance. It does mean
that after a crash you will have to wait while your filesystems
are checked before your system will come up. If your filesystems
are below 0.5Tb that should be tolerable.

The longer term solution is to use journaled soft updates when they
become available in 9.0.

	Kirk McKusick