On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:40:52 +0100
Chris Rees <utis...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> 2009/3/31 Oliver Fromme <o...@lurza.secnetix.de>:
> > Chris Rees <utis...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >  > 2009/3/31 Wojciech Puchar <woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>:
> >  > >
> >  > > IMHO this background fsck isn't good idea at all
> >  >
> >  > Why?
> >
> > Google "background fsck damage".
> >
> > I was bitten by it myself, and I also recommend to turn
> > background fsck off.  If your disks are large and you
> > can't afford the fsck time, consider using ZFS, which
> > has a lot of benefits besides not requiring fsck.
> >
> > Best regards
> >   Oliver
> >
> 
> Right... You were bitten by background fsck, what _exactly_ happened?
> All the 'problems' here associated with bgfsck are referring to
> FreeBSD 4 etc, or incredibly vague anecdotal evidence. Have you
> googled for background fsck damage? Nothing (in the first two pages at
> least) even suggests that background fsck causes damage.
>

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=background+fsck+corruption

You'll find the first few results are about panics during background
fsck resulting in an endless cycle of boot-panic-reboot, which don't
occur with foreground fsck. And at least the first result is from 6.x.

-- 
Bruce Cran
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to