Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
From: Jorn Argelo (jorn_at_wcborstel.nl)
Date: 06/30/05
- Previous message: Igor Robul: "Re: NVIDIA TNT2 woes"
- In reply to: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Next in thread: Ronald Klop: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Reply: Ronald Klop: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:50:33 +0200 To: JM <jmartin37@speakeasy.net>
JM wrote:
> Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> and in addition to that... you can enable a foreground fsck at boot
> which might be the better option if boot times aren't an issue.
May I ask how I can do that? Because I've always prefered foreground
fsck then background fsck to be honest. At least you can see what the
machine is doing.
Jorn
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
_______________________________________________
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: Igor Robul: "Re: NVIDIA TNT2 woes"
- In reply to: JM: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Next in thread: Ronald Klop: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Reply: Ronald Klop: "Re: background fsck can be dangerous!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
