Daniel Pittman <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003, Jason Parker-Burlingham wrote:
>> 0) Will this really be useful? My hope is that storing the log on a
>> device which doesn't use the IDE bus will save the log from
>> becoming corrupted when the IDE disks start to fail.
> Very, very few IDE disk failures cause bus corruption.
I was thinking of IDE bus failures; the hope is that by purchasing a
fairly inexpensive piece of equipment, the filesystem log could be
stored in such a way as to be less prone to the same sorts of failure
mode as the disk with the data on it.
The next step up would be to buy pairs of IDE disks and use RAID for
more concrete protection against disk failure, but I anticipate
that the devices I want to use will cost perhaps less than half the
cost of a second disk.
Perhaps I have something of an XY problem here. My experience with
data recovery doesn't endear me to it, so I am looking for small
changes I can make to existing systems to reduce the amount of time
spent searching for data on a failing disk or corrupt filesystem.
I assumed the log would be critical to correctly recovering an XFS
filesystem, but I see that cmd/xfsprogs/repair/README talks about
zeroing the log almost immediately so perhaps that's not as important
as I thought.
I want to be able to recommend XFS over the Linux journalling
filesystem alternatives, and having a better idea of what to do when
the tools fail would be extremely helpful.
Stay up-to-date on what I'm doing lately: