2009/4/6 Bruce Cran <br...@cran.org.uk>: > 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 >
So... Is the background fsck causing damage or corruption? The answer to that is NO. It's a consequence of reading a bad directory structure, which happened anyway. Quoting jpd on this same issue, emphasis added: > So far we only have *your word* for *vague problems* and *speculated causes*. > So your best bets so far are to investigate, and lending a hand to the > fs people with ironing out a possible bug or two. Seriously, this conversation is full of crap, and only makes one of FreeBSDs incredibly useful features look bad with no evidence. Can no-one can come up with a reply either quoting a mailing list or giving the circumstances when: a) Background fsck caused data CORRUPTION _and_ b) A foreground fsck would not have done the same ? Anything else is sidestepping the question, and spreading FUD. Anyone? Perhaps I should CC one of the filesystem developers to get them to reassure you all? I don't think they'd be too pleased at people saying their design is flawed. It's not. Chris -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"