[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS as Root filesystem

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS as Root filesystem
From: Lyle Seaman <lws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:11:44 -0400
Organization: Hah.
References: <200004051440.JAA25697@jen.americas.sgi.com>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > ext3 doesn't really "solve" this, but it does step around it: if you
> > mount a filesystem which needs recovery as readonly, then it will
> > warn you that it is enabling write access to the device temporarily
> > and will perform the recovery.  The filesystem retains full ROFS
> > protection, but the device does get written to.  Ext3 does a device
> > check to make sure that the block device is writable before it
> > attempts to do this, and if it is not, it will abort the mount
> > entirely: you can't mount ext3 on readonly media if recovery is
> > needed.
> >
> > --Stephen
> Just to report on where XFS is in all of this, it will fail a read only
> mount request if it determines recovery needs to be run. We do have
> a norecovery mount option - but this is really for internal use only,
> I would not recommend using it.

How does a readonly filesystem become inconsistent?
(esp: "how does ext3 on readonly media" become inconsistent?)

The obvious answer is "well, it *wasn't* readonly when it
became inconsistent".

If that's the case, then why do you care?  Naively, I wouldn't
think this is a big deal.  Why am I wrong?

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