Subject: Re: FFS reliability problems
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-kern
Date: 05/15/2002 15:33:00
>>> With fsck_ffs(8), I note that inodes which are otherwise valid (but
>>> not connected) are cleared.  If they're non-zero size, should they
>>> not be reconnected into lost+found?
>> You're on crack.  That's all I have to say.
> ...exCUSE me?!?  Do you think you could possibly put it any more
> rudely?

Careful; he might take it as a challenge, and I think he probably could.

> Does anyone else out there have a REAL answer why unreferenced inodes
> are automagically cleared by "fsck_ffs -p" at boot time?  I just lost
> about a day's worth of work because of this, thank you very much.

When I tried fsck with deliberately orphaned inodes with nonzero size
(I used clri on the containing directory), it put them in lost+found.

I didn't use -p, because your original message didn't say anything
about -p.  I'd also be interested to know whether the inodes had zero
link count or not.  I'll try to experiment a bit (with vnd and files)
and see if I can reproduce your symptoms with various combinations of
options.  Certainly an initial test didn't, so I think mycroft can be
excused the incredulity (though the way he picked to express it is
another matter).

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B