[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful

To: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:43:41 +0200
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <4C674AE8.7030107@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <4C670101.8050901@xxxxxxxxx> <20100815005240.GH10429@dastard> <4C674AE8.7030107@xxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
On 14.08.2010 19:03, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:48:01PM -0700, Linda A. Walsh wrote:
>>> Some time ago, when I upgraded a system, I ran into problems when
>>> it hit a file system that was offline.  It wasn't a critical
>>> partition, so it normally wouldn't have been an issue, but somewhere
>>> along the line
>>> someone mangled fsck.xfs.
>> fsck.xfs is behaving identically to e2fsck when presented with an
>> invalid block device - it exits with an error of 8, which is defined
>> as "operational error" in the e2fsck man page.
> ---
>       That may be fine for the ext2 fs, but I am asserting that in actual
> practice, with xfs, it does more harm than good.

I would suggest using autofs, so that you can keep fstab to an absolut 

Except for devices related to booting, i personally mount everything 
either with autofs or manually(In that case it's normaly a one-shot 

In my case that are all "non boot related" devices, DVD-drive, network 
filesystems, some "tmpfs"es for playing, removable-devices, etc.

Bis denn

Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.

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