> > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully > > analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into > > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all > > scenarios. > > Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a > possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will > interfere with soft updates.
Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
