On Oct 14, 2013, at 12:41 PM, RW <rwmailli...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:48:18 -0700 Charles Swiger wrote: >> Yes. Without journalling, you'd normally perform the full >> timeconsuming fsck in the foreground. > > Journalling removes the need for the background fsck which only recovers > lost space.
That and inode link changes (ie, adding or removing files from a directory). >> With journalling, it should be able to do a journal replay to restore >> the filesystem to an OK state, > > My understanding is that the journal does nothing to restore the > filesystem other than keep track of orphaned memory. In all other > respect it's the job of soft-updates to keep the filesystem in an OK > state. Yes, SU is supposed to reorder filesystem operations to provide some level of "ACID" transaction semantics-- and the journal helps that by avoiding the need for bgfsck. > When it doesn't you need a foreground check. > >> but sometimes that doesn't restore consistency, in which case it >> usually fires off a background fsck rather than the foreground fsck. > > I think if the journal fails, you would really need to run at least a > foreground preen, maybe a full fsck. Yes. Regards, -- -Chuck _______________________________________________ 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"
