xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs after a week of use

To: Thomas Graichen <graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs after a week of use
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 12:59:18 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Message from Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@innominate.de> of "07 Aug 2000 17:52:55 GMT." <news2mail-8mmt1n$fo8$1@mate.bln.innominate.de>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs-announce@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > One comment here - the lost+found directory is removed by xfs_repair,
> > so if you run repair and it reconnects some files, then running repair
> > again without moving those files somewhere else will result in them
> > getting reconnected again.
> 
> so it is a bit different in this aspect to a classic ufs - right
> (or this does no longer cry about it) ... but i'm now really
> convinced - i think it connects lost inodes to lost+found
> but the second run they are connected and don't need to
> be reconnected again - do i miss anything here ?

Well, not quite, if there are inodes in lost+found which are not connected
anywhere else, then xfs_repair ends up disconnecting them again, it then
proceeds to find them and reconnect them. A bit braindead I suppose, but
that is what happens.

Steve

> 
> t
> 
> -- 
> thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> technical director                                       innominate AG
> clustering & security                                networking people
> tel: +49.30.308806-13  fax: -77                   http://innominate.de



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