On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 06:26:05PM +0200, 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_repair doesn't yet check free space btrees - it simply
blows them away and rebuilds htem from scratch. Hence errors
in those btrees will go unreported. xfs_check will tell you
about errors in those trees.