Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman (green_at_freebsd.org)
Date: 06/30/05
- Previous message: Sven Willenberger: "Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL's vacuumdb fails to allocate memory for"
- In reply to: Steven Hartland: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Next in thread: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Reply: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 02:06:12 -0400 To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 03:12:37PM +0100, Steven Hartland wrote:
> I've not had a single crash / power outage that background fsck has
> been able to deal with. 90% of the time the machine will fail to even
> boot to single user mode :(
You should turn write caching off on your drives.
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Niki Denev" <ndenev@icdsoft.com>
>
> >I want just to share my last experience with the combination of
> >power failure + background fsck. After the power returned and the
> >machine booted, it sheduled background fsck after 60 seconds, but
> >at this point most of the services were already started, and some of them
> >seemed to rely on files that were probably in unclean state before the
> >check.
> >This unfortunately leaded to some lost email...after the fsck completed,
> >everything runs ok, but i have now set background_fsck to NO in rc.conf.
> >
> >Here is a sad sample from my qmail log file :
> >@4000000042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1:
> >success:
> >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/
> >@4000000042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20
> >@4000000042c1badc250151ec delivery 4:
> >success:
> >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/
> >@4000000042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20
> >@4000000042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982
> >@4000000042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2:
> >success:
> >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/
> >@4000000042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20
> >@4000000042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087
> >@4000000042c1badc2510942c end msg 24040
The filesystem looks the same before, during, and after background
fsck runs, other than the free space information.
-- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Sven Willenberger: "Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL's vacuumdb fails to allocate memory for"
- In reply to: Steven Hartland: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Next in thread: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Reply: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]