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*