UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY
olli at lurza.secnetix.de
Sat Sep 27 16:46:17 UTC 2008
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.
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
More information about the freebsd-stable