karol.kwiat at gmail.com
Thu Aug 23 02:25:55 PDT 2007
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
> > Ian Smith wrote:
> > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
> > > > If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does
> > > > background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only?
> > >
> > > Well I was referring to foreground fsck, and I still don't know why
> > > running it on a mounted fs is 'bad' when fsck runs in 'NO WRITE' mode
> > > anyway when it finds a fs is mounted, hence my query above.
> > Here's my understanding:
> > Mounted fs (rw) isn't in stable state, there may be some writes to it -
> > daemons, buffers flushes, etc. In this condition fsck can report
> > inconsistency. And fsck running in 'NO WRITE' won't help anyway :)
> a) Absolutely.
> b) Indeed it usually does, fairly consistently, especially on /var.
> c) No it won't help (except where it can help locate problems in a real
> mess like bad blocks), but the assertion in question was, can it hurt?
Ah sorry, I missed that. With 'NO WRITE' one can suppose it shouldn't
hurt anything except performance ;)
I made a quick scan through the source and it looks like it won't:
- in src/sbin/fsck_ffs/setup.c
if fs is mounted rw fswritefd is set to -1
- in src/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsutil.c
blwrite(), flush() and ckfini() won't write anything if fswritefd<0
Unless, of course, I'm missing something.
Karol Kwiatkowski <karol.kwiat at gmail dot com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20070823/9be269e9/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions