Re: Reducing UFS corruption from unclean shutdowns?

From: Scott Long <>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 16:44:30 -0600
> On Jun 21, 2019, at 4:37 PM, Warner Losh <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 3:33 PM Conrad Meyer <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:55 PM Alan Somers <> wrote:
>>> I would've thought that immediately following a sync(8), the
>>> filesystem would be consistent.  Why do I still see errors after a
>>> panic in files that were written before I sync()ed?
>>> -Alan
>> Hi Alan,
>> Contra the name, sync(2) (sync(8)) isn't synchronous.  It invokes
>> VFS_SYNC() with MNT_NOWAIT across all mountpoints.
> Yes. Sync(2) just starts the I/O, but it may be delayed if there is a lot
> of dirty buffers. The other issue is that new buffers may be dirtied…

Still, the point of SU and SU+J is that the filesystem should not be
damaged and require active repair on reboot, whether or not a
sync or fsync was done.  There’s certainly issues with disk lying
about out of order writes, POSIX sematics of unlinked files, and the
inherent design of UFS superblock updates, but the problems that
Alan reported should still be looked at, they’re not expected and
they undermine the usefulness of SU+J.

Received on Fri Jun 21 2019 - 20:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:21 UTC