| To: | Ajay Shekhawat <ajay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS trouble (!) |
| From: | Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:20:38 +1100 |
| Cc: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20021130180602.GC18501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from ajay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500 |
| References: | <20021130000059.GA18501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021130135526.A526752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021130035148.GB18501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021130154031.B526752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021130180602.GC18501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Ajay Shekhawat wrote: > I gave the command > uuid <uuid printed by xfs_db> > in xfs_db, and it was able to mount the filesystem. Everything _appears_ > to be there, though it is difficult to check quickly. > > So what are my options now: should I do a 'xfs_check' again? Since your last run didn't seem to report any problems and the log is no longer corrupt, I would say there is unlikely to be any benefit from running it again (esp. since it takes so long for you). > Should I migrate to the latest CVS branch? It is a production machine, > though, and I'm not sure if the latest bleeding edge release is > the way to go (if something happens, a lot of sharp soon-to-be-bleeding > edges will head my way). I would stick with the 1.2[pre] tree for a production machine, there are still known issues in the development CVS tree which are not present in 1.2. cheers. -- Nathan |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS trouble (!), Ajay Shekhawat |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - acl/attr I18N updates (final), Nathan Scott |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS trouble (!), Ajay Shekhawat |
| Next by Thread: | TAKE - acl/attr I18N updates (final), Nathan Scott |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |