xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 39

To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 39
From: Eli Morris <ermorris@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:28:30 -0800
In-reply-to: <mailman.1.1289671202.29335.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <mailman.1.1289671202.29335.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:19:38 +0100
> From: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: xfs_repair of critical volume
> To: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <20101113091938.1d0553a8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Le Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:14:52 -0600 vous ?criviez:
> 
>> This isn't "robustness" Michael.  If anything it's a serious problem.
> 
> I beg to disagree. Would it be better if instead of still having some
> of the data, everything was lost? At what level of accidental
> destruction do you think that the whole data set should be made
> unavailable? 10%? 5? 1? 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
>                    |   Intellique
>                    |  <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:28:45 -0600
> From: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: xfs_repair of critical volume
> To: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Message-ID: <4CDE5A4D.9090905@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Emmanuel Florac put forth on 11/13/2010 2:19 AM:
>> Le Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:14:52 -0600 vous ?criviez:
>> 
>>> This isn't "robustness" Michael.  If anything it's a serious problem.
>> 
>> I beg to disagree. Would it be better if instead of still having some
>> of the data, everything was lost? At what level of accidental
>> destruction do you think that the whole data set should be made
>> unavailable? 10%? 5? 1? 
> 
> You've missed the point of this sub thread discussion, or I did.  He
> stated that having the metadata show the files still exist is a positive
> thing.  The files are gone.  I stated that this discrepancy is not good
> thing.
> 
> I believe you are confused, thinking this micro discussion is dealing
> with the OP's overall situation.  It is not.  It is dealing strictly
> with the issue of the lost set of disks, the files that were on them,
> and the fact the metadata says they still exist.  I believe this is due
> to the fact that he hasn't run a destructive xfs_repair yet, which I'm
> guessing will remove those orphaned metadata entries.
> 
> Again, I'm pretty sure you misunderstood exactly what we were talking
> about, or I misunderstood what he was talking about, heck, maybe both.
> I absolutely was not stating anything akin to throwing the baby out with
> the bath water.
> 
> -- 
> Stan


Hi,

Just to clarify, I have run the destructive xfs_repair command a few times. I 
still have the same thing going on where the filesystem says the files are 
there when clearly they aren't. 


thanks,

Eli

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: xfs Digest, Vol 27, Issue 39, Eli Morris <=