| To: | Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: can't mount XFS from a read-only device |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:28:47 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20091009212150.2b54cb77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20091009170937.3938ff7b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ACF8801.7070009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20091009212150.2b54cb77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) |
Emmanuel Florac wrote: > Le Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:59:13 -0500 vous écriviez: > >> try mount -o norecovery (and maybe -o nobarrier) > > Thank you, that worked. > > I can't help but think that when given the "ro" option, XFS shouldn't > try to write a single bit to the underlying device, or else what's the > point? For a dirty log, we do still recover -unless- the underlying device is RO. Otherwise you get a corrupt fs mounted ro.... other filesystems do the same thing, FWIW. For a clean log I agree; what kernel was this? I vaguely remember a fix in this area. Which option solved it? (norecovery I'm guessing) -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: can't mount XFS from a read-only device, Emmanuel Florac |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: can't mount XFS from a read-only device, Emmanuel Florac |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: can't mount XFS from a read-only device, Emmanuel Florac |
| Next by Thread: | Re: can't mount XFS from a read-only device, Emmanuel Florac |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |