UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY
000.fbsd at quip.cz
Mon Sep 29 13:31:05 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
>>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.
Is there any possibility to selectively disable / enable background fsck
on specified mount points?
I can imagine system, where root, /usr, /var and /tmp will be checked by
fsck in foreground, but waiting to foreground fsck on data partitions of
about 500GB or more (it can take up tens of minutes or "hours") is scary.
I need server with ssh running up "quickly" after the crash, so I can
investigate what the problem was and not just sit and wait tens of
minutes "if" machine gets online again or not... answering phone calls
of clients in the meantime.
More information about the freebsd-stable