Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 01:45:40AM +0300, Niki Denev wrote: > Before the background fsck finished some files were unreadable, > and they happened to be some libraries used by my mail software. > After the fsck finished these libraries were accessible again and > everything was normal and working, at least this is what it looked > like to me. > So, i think that if i had disabled background fsck (as i did now) > i should have skipped the loss of these about ten emails... IMHO this is something you need to solve no matter what. Failure of a local delivery program shouldn't cause lost or bounced emails; fixing this is usually just a matter of wrapping the program in appropriate shell magic to return the "temporary failure" error level (75 I think). For instance, when using postfix you can just use the following: mailbox_command = /your/local/script || exit 75 This way, even if the script fails running for *any* reason, postfix will just requeue your email. Again, this is not postfix-specific at all. Bye, Andrea -- Press every key to continue. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Niki Denev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Before the background fsck finished some files were unreadable, >and they happened to be some libraries used by my mail software. >After the fsck finished these libraries were accessible again and >everything was normal and working, at least this is what it looked >like to me. I wonder how this can happen.. I thought the only thing that could happen is that some files would get truncated to zero length? mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Luke Crawford wrote: >> disabling background fsck while continuing to run soft updates >> will make little difference. >> >> Personally, I would recommend that you keep your disk mount >> configuration as it is, and that you buy a UPS. >> Well, i surely need an UPS, that's out of question, but the problem that i had was not about loss/corruption on files on disk. Before the background fsck finished some files were unreadable, and they happened to be some libraries used by my mail software. After the fsck finished these libraries were accessible again and everything was normal and working, at least this is what it looked like to me. So, i think that if i had disabled background fsck (as i did now) i should have skipped the loss of these about ten emails... --niki ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
This is not a problem with background fsck... this is the way soft updates is supposed to handle a power failure. Soft updates is designed to allow safe write caching. It orders writes such that the filesystem is always consistent. The worst that can happen in the case of power loss is that new files are lost, and the hard drive has incessable data written to it. Background fsck essentially deletes those partially written files and frees the space. If you were not using soft updates, the filesystem would have been corrupted, so you would be forced to run fsck before mounting, and some of the files in question would still have been lost. From what I understand, soft updates does increase the number of files lost upon a crash (over mounting a disk synchronously) because it caches meta data, but that is not a bug. Data loss upon power failure is a natural and unescapable consequence of caching writes. Soft updates orders things such that the data is lost one file at a time, rather than the default where data is lost randomly, requiring a fsck before remounting of the filesystem. You will loose less data if you mount your disks synchronously and disable soft updates. This will also greatly diminish write performance on your disks, and require foreground fsck. disabling background fsck while continuing to run soft updates will make little difference. Personally, I would recommend that you keep your disk mount configuration as it is, and that you buy a UPS. On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Niki Denev wrote: Hello, 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c end msg 24040 --niki ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Matthias Buelow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Christian Laursen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Remember that if you are having trouble with softupdates and background > >fsck reporting inconsistencies, journalling will just give you silent > >filesystem corruption instead. > > What makes you believe so? Assuming the inconsistencies are not caused by bugs in softupdates the only thing that will cause it is hardware that does not live up to the requirements, e.g. ata drives with write caching enabled. Journalling has the same requirements to the hardware. -- Christian Laursen ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Christian Laursen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Remember that if you are having trouble with softupdates and background >fsck reporting inconsistencies, journalling will just give you silent >filesystem corruption instead. What makes you believe so? mkb. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
"Steven Hartland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > /me looks forward to a journaling FS The FS is the one area that > really lets FreeBSD down in my > opinion. Wish I had 1. the time and 2. the knowledge to help > out with dev in the area but unfortunately I have neither :( Remember that if you are having trouble with softupdates and background fsck reporting inconsistencies, journalling will just give you silent filesystem corruption instead. -- Christian Laursen ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Ronald Klop wrote: On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:50:33 +0200, Jorn Argelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. See background_fsck in rc.conf. See also the text below. :-) ronald. Whoops, heh. I missed that part, sorry about that. Thanks for the pointer. Jorn Jorn Steve - Original Message - From: "Niki Denev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
Original Message - From: "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. Normally they wouldn't but on some of our machines there is a large amount of disk 1.TAB + and foreground checking takes a year and a day :( /me looks forward to a journaling FS The FS is the one area that really lets FreeBSD down in my opinion. Wish I had 1. the time and 2. the knowledge to help out with dev in the area but unfortunately I have neither :( Steve / K This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:50:33 +0200, Jorn Argelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. See background_fsck in rc.conf. See also the text below. :-) ronald. Jorn Steve - Original Message - From: "Niki Denev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -- Ronald Klop Amsterdam, The Netherlands ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
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. Steve - Original Message - From: "Niki Denev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c 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 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
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. >Steve > - Original Message - > From: "Niki Denev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >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 : > >@400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: > >success: > >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ > >@400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 > >@400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: > >success: > >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ > >@400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 > >@400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 > >@400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: > >success: > >/libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ > >@400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 > >@400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 > >@400042c1badc2510942c end msg 24040 The filesystem looks the same before, during, and after background fsck runs, other than the free space information. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''\ <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,\ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: background fsck can be dangerous!
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 :( Steve - Original Message - From: "Niki Denev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 : @400042c1badc24fc21cc delivery 1: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc24fff25c status: local 2/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250151ec delivery 4: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc2502bd34 status: local 1/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc25050ef4 end msg 23982 @400042c1badc2508b0a4 delivery 2: success: /libexec/ld-elf.so.1:_Shared_object_"libpq.so.3"_not_found,_required_by_"dspam"/did_0+0+1/ @400042c1badc250a9cd4 status: local 0/30 remote 0/20 @400042c1badc250c7d4c end msg 24087 @400042c1badc2510942c end msg 24040 This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
