UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY

[Oliver Fromme]

sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
 > [...]
 > > > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
 > > > analysed/scanned by fsck.  So again, people are putting faith into
 > > > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
 > > > scenarios.
 > > 
 > > Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a
 > > possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will
 > > interfere with soft updates.
 > 
 > Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always
 > disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too.

Just a "me too" here.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M.
Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606,  Geschäftsfuehrung:
secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün-
chen, HRB 125758,  Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart

FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr:  http://www.secnetix.de/bsd

"If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected
abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was the
last time you needed one?"
        -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal