Re: gjournal and Softupdates

Ivan Voras <ivoras@xxxxxx> writes:

Christian Laursen wrote:

However, with journaling you can have filesystem corruption and not know
about it. With fsck, bg or not, at least you will know.

Also, I'm interested about this - what kind of silent corruption? The
same kind that can generally come from on-drive caches?

Yes, as well as corruption resulting from bugs in the kernel code. The point
is that you will never know because you never check your filesystems.

--
Christian Laursen
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Linux 2.6.29
    ... A corrupt filesystem is a corrupt filesystem. ... I personally find silent corruption to be _worse_ than the non-silent one. ... never having bad data _nor_ needing fsck is clearly optimal. ... We can get help answer those questions with checksums or digital hashes to validate the actual user data of files (open question is when to compute it, where to store, would the SCSI T10 DIF/DIX stuff be sufficient), putting in place some background scrubbers to detect corruptions, etc. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Linux 2.6.29
    ... With ext2 after a system crash you need to run fsck. ... Bah. ... A corrupt filesystem is a corrupt filesystem. ... I personally find silent corruption to be _worse_ than the non-silent one. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)