xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS Recovery

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS Recovery
From: Mark <musicman529@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=N1qE0OV6szutRoWT2jCgUzoG59lboCrpsSZ15GkdbL0623K/mLCV3Iph5S91icNZYYpYnezLg7bp/EHpBT1YjNUE/njGvQ97bDJmfwepLllvMEHOU2/mzU1ktFMP1uyZlMRdWMpu8176iUC4y/cYGudTe08SFb/8tS2paloTKmI=;
In-reply-to: <487171A7.4070602@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: MusicMan529@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
--- On Sun, 7/6/08, Timothy Shimmin <tes@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> XFS mounting filesystem md5
> >> Starting XFS recovery on filesystem: md5 (logdev:
> /dev/md0)
> >> Ending XFS recovery on filesystem: md5 (logdev:
> /dev/md0)
> > 
> > That's normal output when mounting an XFS
> filesystem - if
> > you see more than this then there might be problems...
> > 
> Hmmm....I don't know if I would describe that as
> "normal"
> unless I am misunderstanding Dave here.
> There has been some recovery happening indicating that
> there
> wasn't a clean unmount (it didn't find an unmount
> record in the log).
> But recovery should have replayed the
> outstanding metadata to a time point in the near past
> and so no repair should be necessary (we have qa tests
> which do the
> test anyway and check that there are no complaints).

Maybe not "normal," but at least "acceptable"?

If it's a regular occurrence, it might be worth looking into.
If it was a one-off, with no further complaints, I'd ignore it.

-- 
Mark

"What better place to find oneself than
 on the streets of one's home village?"
      --Capt. Jean-Luc Picard, "Family"


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