Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <>
From: Andrew Gillham <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 07/30/2001 13:05:15
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:28:51PM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> Anything after that is chancy, but you can theoretically choose to
> use fsck_lfs to roll forward into it. I've never done it (because
> I've never had to, because even in power outtages my LFS partition
> has never been corrupted), and maybe fsck_lfs can't, but that's
> not the impression I had from Andrew's email. It sounded like he
> was stressing the limits of the file system (by trying to fill it
> all the way up; if you know how LFS works, you can see how that
> might cause a problem, though LFS should be fixed to work around
> it gracefully) and crapping it out as a result of that.

Yes, I was abusing the poor partition. :)  But to Bill's point you
can easily run out of free/clean segments if you have something that
is using segments at a high rate. (e.g. database / high volume MTA)