[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs_check

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs_check
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:48:28 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20080527162605.GA30344@xxxxxx>
References: <20080527162605.GA30344@xxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20080421)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In the past we had quite a few cases where we told people to run
> xfs_repair -n instead of xfs_check.  I think that makes a lot of sense
> because xfs_repair -n generally gives output at least as useful as
> xfs_check if not more so and also is a lot faster.  Is there any reason
> why we shouldn't simply kill xfs_check and replaced it with a wrapper
> around xfs_repair?

xfs_check checks... $SOMETHING that xfs_repair still does not, I think?

But, if you can't run it on any fs of reasonable size due to memory
piggishness, then... *shrug*


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