From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:03:18 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <9a3c8f55b55f706a76241eeb179eff34@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: <201104240344.27289.errno@cox.net> <63d88c3d38162974e6c68ebc13f86f8d@ladd.quanstro.net> <201104240431.33591.errno@cox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [9fans] kfs and cwfs comparison Topicbox-Message-UUID: d37e4d18-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun Apr 24 13:37:08 EDT 2011, john@jfloren.net wrote: > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 9:10 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > both have a weak spot. > > kfs.  there's one copy of the file system.  if you corrupt it, you're out of > > luck.  i've never seen this happen. > > > > cwfs.  if the fs is halted during the dump, there is a non-zero chance > > of corruption.  i have seen this, but "recover main" can usually roll the > > fs back to the last good dump.  the same mechanism can recover a fs > > if an untimely shutdown has corrupted the cache. > > > > The other day I managed to fill up a cwfs fscache, making it > impossible to dump or boot the machine. Is it possible to recover from > this state? recover main should flush the cache, but that's probablly not what you want. if you're not using the fast-cache option, just make the cache device bigger. this is a bug and should be fixed or mitigated. - erik