xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: How to fsck read-only-mounted root filesystem?

To: Dan Hollis <goemon@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: How to fsck read-only-mounted root filesystem?
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 15:23:33 +0100
Cc: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux xfs ml <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0112052258500.16621-100000@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011120
Dan Hollis wrote:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Simon Matter wrote:

Dan Hollis schrieb:

On 5 Dec 2001, Steve Lord wrote:

It is also not 'install a cdrom', it is boot with a bootable cdrom.

This machine doesnt have any cdrom drive, so it is "install a cdrom drive"
just to fix the root fs. :-(

But you have a floppy drive, do you? So why don't you take boot/root
floppies instead? They are available as well.


No floppy either. I will have to install one. This sucks :-(


It was *really* suprising to me that you can't repair a read-only mounted
filesystem, I suspect it will be equally suprising to others.

What is life without surprise? Windwos users are also surprised when
they learn that we don't have (need) a C: on our computers :-)


Suprised in the respect that ext2 and reiserfs have no such limitation, I
was expecting xfs to be at least as functional and mature.

It's just designed differently.

If You go buy a ferrari and go whine that you can't fit that piano in the trunk, then you have to think what's important for you. Fitting the piano or driving fast. If repair-on-mounted-filesystem is what you're after then you use a filesystem that supports it. If you're after a good, fast and stable (and mature) filesystem you stick to xfs. The choice is yours.

// Stefan




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>