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