xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FWD: fsck in background?

To: Greg Freemyer <freemyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FWD: fsck in background?
From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:44:02 -0700
Cc: xfs mailing list <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20030407181603.BFJZ27553.imf22bis.bellsouth.net@tiger2>
References: <20030407181603.BFJZ27553.imf22bis.bellsouth.net@tiger2>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Mon, Apr 07, 2003 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:

> I do a xfs_fsr and mapcheck nightly.

this is bad

if you're fragmenting badly enough to need this, you should address
the cause of that --- otherwise, for small moderate amounts of
fragmentation the loss of file-locality is worse for many people

> Is there more I could do to test the FS validity?

a xfs_repair passed over a snapshot would probably be slow and
overkill

> Specifically, it is a shell script for doing a read-only fsck of a
> mounted FS.

> It uses a LVM snapshot to perform fsck on, then echo's an error to a
> log file if it encounters a problem
>
> The idea is that a system with long uptimes could verify the FS
> structure is valid from time to time.

yes, this is what i mention about ... a lvn/frozen fs snapshot and
xfs_repair but NOT readonly would work but is overkill

xfs_repair -n (read only) isn't very useful

> It does not support XFS, but maybe it could be expanded to do that?

there is nothing to prevent what i suggest working with xfs

> If so, maybe this would be good candidate for the contrib section.

i'm sure people would welcome such a thing if you were to provide it


  --cw


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