On 14.10.2013 20:43, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:33 PM, CeDeROM <cede...@tlen.pl > <mailto:cede...@tlen.pl>> wrote: > > Thank you for explaining :-) So it looks that it would be sensible to > force filesystem check every n-th mount..? > > > Please explain the logic in which this helps anything. > > > Or to do a filesystem check > after crash..? > > > Already standard behavior as implicitly seen in this thread. > > > Are there any flags like that to mark filesystem > unclean and to force fsck after n-th mount? > > > No and any fs that requires such a system is broken by design. > > > That would assume > disabling journal and soft updates journaling I guess..? > > What would be the best option for best data integrity in case of > crash? > > > mount -o sync or use ZFS. Both require hardware that correctly report > success to fsync.
I personnally love ZFS and use it massively on my server, but for a desktop I think this is a real overkill. Also I don't have so much RAM to waste for that. I think UFS is enough, however as a modern operating system I don't expect any data corruption by default using SU+J. The filesystem domain is not a thing I really know deeply, so thanks for all you explanation. PS: the power failure is not the only way that does not shutdown cleanly the system. There are kernel panics, crash and such of course. Those which appears sometimes too. Regards, _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
