From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC34C23A63
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Mon,  6 May 2024 16:53:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Mon May  6 10:50:34 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1715006999;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=cf9Wz2Zr43etlLDn1SXttO6ahywmxPea2vPnUNwlKas=;
	b=fEcIFonh9I6NiNVvfpPs0y+vCN/A7kodhj7Is/3XOTc/IgNLbeoVZGZ7w54TqHq4FZpZlk
	UcvyDG3lYRf6vEuO5dENrZhD6e/z2EVraluv/9ALLy0UnGdGy2KfqeT/VnaYHvoezCFMdq
	qgQG5riZ7fp5kysxx9JTAPXhNygpnyg=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 03c6b0a9 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Mon, 6 May 2024 07:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <944CC9D807FB7E302CDDB114CBE15BD0@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 16:50:17 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <2F67D591-F391-4C73-AFFB-ACAB0EE6FC06@stanleylieber.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: progressive transactional STM XML over HTTP deep-learning event 
Subject: Re: [9front] AUTHENTICATE failed can't get challenge (imap4d)
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon May  6 16:34:44 +0200 2024, sl@stanleylieber.com wrote:
> > It's a bad idea to run cwfs without a worm, especially in a vm.
> 
> why?
> 
> sl

In my experience cwfs is very sensitive to unclean shutdowns, much
more than hjfs.  VPS providers may sometimes reboot instances, or VMs
may go down, or 9front may panic and freeze, etc.  I also remember
many instances of corruption (iirc with hjfs) under qemu but this
might have been fixed.  Either way I think it's too risky to not have
any recovery method; if the check commands fail it's over.  Of course
please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not very familiar with the code.

qwx