> > On Apr 6, 2009, at 11:12, Chris Rees wrote: > >> Can >> no-one can come up with a reply either quoting a mailing list or >> giving the circumstances when: >> >> a) Background fsck caused data CORRUPTION >> >> _and_ >> >> b) A foreground fsck would not have done the same >> >> ? 2009/4/6 Doug Hardie <bc...@lafn.org>:
> Yes. When background FSCK first became standard I let it go that way on my > production servers. The first time we had a power issue that resulted in a > shutdown of a server it tried to come back up when the power was restored. > I have a large number of daemons that rely on configure files and other > information that is reasonably frequently updated. Some of those files were > in the process of being updated when it shut down. As a result background > FSCK did not get around to those files till much after the daemons were up > and running (or trying to run). Most of them worked ok at the beginning. > However after FSCK resolved the problems, the underlying files changed. > The daemons couldn't function at that point. > > While a simple reboot at that point fixed everything, that caused yet > another outage for users. <snip> So, the answer is NO, it does NOT cause data CORRUPTION. A simple reboot solved it? Really, you're advocating guaranteed extended downtime every time there's a power outage, compared with a slight chance of a slightly longer downtime while every other time it comes almost straight up. Any more replies, please, read the damned question. > I doubt that the concept of background FSCK is broken and I suspect that the > implementation is good too. _Thank_ you Chris -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? _______________________________________________ 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"
