Kevin Oberman wrote:
To get to UFS2, you must newfs the partition. I don't know of nay
other way. The basic improvement in UFS2 is the expansion of many
fields to 64 bits to allow for much larger structures. While newfs in
V5.1 and CURRENT defaults to UFS2, there are no problems continuing to
run U
Bill Moran wrote:
Jens Rehsack wrote:
Don Lewis wrote:
On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk
reporting that the write has completed before the contents of
the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been
committed to st
Bill Moran wrote:
[...]
To me, this means:
a) if you want reliable, don't use IDE with WC
Reducable of 'don't use IDE' :-)
b) if you want reliable and fast, don't use IDE, period, use SCSI.
If you look at the recent postings, SCSI didn't help
you out everytime. I use the fileserver in current
co
Jens Rehsack wrote:
Don Lewis wrote:
On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk
reporting that the write has completed before the contents of
the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been
committed to stable storage.
Unfortu
Don Lewis wrote:
On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
[...]
Actually, write caching is not so much the problem, as the disk
reporting that the write has completed before the contents of
the transaction saved in the write cache have actually been
committed to stable storage.
Unfortunately, IDE disks do
Terry Lambert wrote:
Unfortunately, IDE disks do not permit disconnected writes, due
to a bug in the original IDE implementation,
Therefore IDE disks almost universally lie to the driver any
time write caching is enabled on an IDE drive.
I understand that SATA has fixed a number of problems
in
On 2 Oct, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Jens Rehsack wrote:
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> > Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
>> >
>> > The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file
>> > system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates
>> > works, you are
Jens Rehsack wrote:
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
> >
> > The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file
> > system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates
> > works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboo
According to Brooks Davis:
> I believe this problem has been fixed. At least that's what I got out
It has been fixed for a few months now. That fix could be backported to
stable but it requires careful testing as many files are touched by the
change.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to
Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:39:47 +
From: Jens Rehsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Oberman wrote:
[...]
Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file
system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way s
> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 06:39:47 +
> From: Jens Rehsack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
> >
> > The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file
> > system with soft updates enabled. Because of
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:22:58 -0700
Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700
> > Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot b
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700
> Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available
> > on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pr
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:19:26PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700
> Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available
> > on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pr
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:49:33 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background
> fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled? I'm going to
> switch back to -p and look a bit closer the next time i
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:25:06 -0700
Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As soon as Kirk committed the snapshot capability, snapshot became available
> on UFS1. The only requirement is softupdates and softupdates pre-dates
> UFS2.
Snapshots are available in 4.9? I thought it's not only about
Kevin Oberman wrote:
[...]
Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file
system with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates
works, you are assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so the file
systems can be mou
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:04:51AM +0200, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> > >
> > > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> > > they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work?
> >
> > It's not just the fsck application itself, ba
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
> >
> > The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system
> > with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are
> > assured of metadata consistency on r
Lukas Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs
> file system snapshots, which are only available on UFS2, and I'm not sure
> if they can be backported to UFS1 at all.
Huh? Snapshots are available for both UFS1 and UFS2, but only
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 04:44:30PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:28:20 -0300 (ADT)
> > From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> >
> > > > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> > > >
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 20:28:20 -0300 (ADT)
> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote:
>
> > > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> > > they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work?
> >
> > It's not
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> > they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work?
>
> It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs
> file system snapshots, which are only availa
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:04:51AM +0200, Lukas Ertl wrote:
> >
> > are either of these enhancements back-patchable to the 4.x fsck, or do
> > they require some non-4.x compatible changes to work?
>
> It's not just the fsck application itself, background fsck basically needs
> file system snapshot
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Now,I don't/wouldn't have softupdates enabled on / .. does the 'background
> fsck' know to not background if softupdates are not enabled?
Yes, this is no problem, if the FS doesn't have SU, it just checks it the
"old" way. Since / is usually rather
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> Current has two major changes re speeding up fsck.
>
> The most significant is the background operation of fsck on file system
> with soft updates enabled. Because of the way softupdates works, you are
> assured of metadata consistency on reboot, so the
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 18:42:21 -0300 (ADT)
> From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Due to an electrician flipping the wrong circuit breaker this morning, I
> had my servers go down hard ... they are all -STABLE, with one of the four
> taking a *very* lo
Due to an electrician flipping the wrong circuit breaker this morning, I
had my servers go down hard ... they are all -STABLE, with one of the four
taking a *very* long time to fsck:
jupiter# ps aux | grep fsck
root 361 99.0 2.3 95572 95508 p0 R+4:21PM 121:13.21 fsck -y /dev/da0s1h
ju
28 matches
Mail list logo
