| To: | Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Should xfs_repair take this long? |
| From: | Thomas Walker <walker@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:06:42 -0400 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20070315150422.7bc5d178@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <45F92D8C.3090708@xxxxxxxxx> <20070315150422.7bc5d178@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) |
The terminal shows a lot of "." dots running across the screen quickly, and every few hours it says this; .....................................................found candidate secondary superblock...
unable to verify superblock, continuing...
found candidate secondary superblock...
unable to verify superblock, continuing...
Thomas Walker
Emmanuel Florac wrote:
Le Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:27:08 -0400 Thomas Walker <walker@xxxxxxxxx> écrivait:xfs_repair -o assume_xfs /dev/mapper/vg0-hladata3This command has been running for two days now.Is there any output from xfs_repair ? This doesn't sound good. I've run xfs_repair on some badly corrupted fs up to 13 TB, and it never took more than a couple of minutes. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: cache+barriers vs cache+nobarriers vs disabled cache+barriers vs disabled cache+nobarriers, Martin Steigerwald |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Should xfs_repair take this long?, Emmanuel Florac |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Should xfs_repair take this long?, Emmanuel Florac |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Should xfs_repair take this long?, Emmanuel Florac |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |