[Top] [All Lists]

Re: can xfs_repair guarantee a complete clean filesystem?

To: hank peng <pengxihan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: can xfs_repair guarantee a complete clean filesystem?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:58:15 -0600
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <389deec70911302037v19764c2cr7686b353c5e933fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <389deec70911301805j37df7397l1c3ddbbad7e91768@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4B14936F.7040401@xxxxxxxxxxx> <389deec70911302037v19764c2cr7686b353c5e933fa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090812)
hank peng wrote:
> 2009/12/1 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> hank peng wrote:
>>> When using xfs_repair, I want my XFS filesystem complete clean and
>>> continue to work even if some files lost. Becase we use XFS in low-end
>>> NAS box, customers want a tool to repair the filesystem when it has
>>> problem and they allow some files be lost and don't want the whole
>>> system to stop.
>>> So, I wonder if xfs_repair or some other tools can satisfy this funciton?
>> Yes, that is exactly its purpose (any potential bugs notwithstanding...)
> Thanks for your reply.
> Is there some points I should notice about when using xfs_repair? I
> used to encounter some cases in which xfs_repair complete successfully
> but some errors like "Corrupt in memory detected" occured when the
> filesytem is put into online for short time.

It's possible that you encountered a bug (in xfs or elsewhere), or
bad hardware...

> Should I reboot the machine and use xfs_repair before the damaged
> filesystem is used, or some other options I should use?

Just unmount the filesystem, run repair, and remount.

> In addition, I googled some information and found that some people say
> xfs_check should be used before xfs_repair, is it right?

There's no need; xfs_check doesn't scale very well, and xfs_repair -n will do
a check-only run if that's what you want.

xfs_check checks a little more than xfs_repair, but xfs_repair simply
rebuilds those things it doesn't check in any case.


>> -Eric

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