xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_check problems on 3.6TB fs

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs_check problems on 3.6TB fs
From: Michal Szymanski <msz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:13:39 +0200
In-reply-to: <417E216A.2090503@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20041025150037.GA4665@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <417E216A.2090503@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Hi Frank,

Thanks for your comments.

>> The oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs pages content suggests that actually 'fcsk'
>> is not needed anymore on a journalling FS like XFS. So maybe we can just
>> live without it?

> No. There will be times, you'll need it. Powerloss is never going to 
> give you predictable results.

> That would support my theory that there is a wrap-around bug somewhere 
> in xfs_check. It is not in xfs_repair. so I'll give it a try and have a 
> look.

Still, if I am correct, 'xfs_check' gives just information on the FS
status and it is 'xfs_repair' that does the real job. So the 'xfs_check'
seems not to be that important.

Michal Szymanski


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