This is a very interesting discussion for me, and probably warrants some more research and testing. I readily admit that I've always worked under the operating assumption that pulling the plug *could* lead to corruption, even after "upgrading" from ufs to xfs those many years ago. It certainly deserves a second look as to whether this quiescing stuff is necessary. Many in the industry, including the backup vendors, seem to think it's required.
Thanks for the thought food. -Adam On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (lopser) < lop...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Brandon Allbery [mailto:allber...@gmail.com] > > > > Mostly discussion/"help plz!" in #macports IRC. It's not especially > common > > but there've been enough (3-4) instances to make me wary of relying on > it. > > > > xfs has been known to eat itself under some circumstances as well; that > one > > has been discussed in #lopsa IRC. > > Unless I miss my guess, the discussions you're remembering are *not* > filesystem-eats-itself-because-of-power-failure. Every filesystem can > become corrupt via hardware failure (CPU or memory errors, etc), or > software failures (malware gobbles up critical disk sectors), or human > failures. But that's not a reason to believe that snapshotting a running > system, or hard-cutting the power leads to filesystem corruption of any > kind. >
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list Tech@lists.lopsa.org https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
