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

[Gary Jennejohn]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:48:58 -0400
"Mikhail T." <mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com> wrote:

> 20.07.2010 11:44, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> > 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...
> 

[trimmed to fs@]

Since we're discussing bg fsck...

For those running -current I highly recommend SUJ.  It recovers the file
systems in fractions of a second after a crash and obviates the need for
fsck.  I've only had good results using it.

--
Gary Jennejohn