xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Linux/XFS equivalents of defrag, chkdsk?

To: mike <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Linux/XFS equivalents of defrag, chkdsk?
From: Michael Loftis <mloftis@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 14:45:59 -0600
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0408291321540.29465@raid01.mikehost.net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0408291321540.29465@raid01.mikehost.net>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx


--On Sunday, August 29, 2004 13:24 -0700 mike <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I want to ensure that my filesystems are always optimized as well as be
able to detect any possible filesystem-level issues ahead of time.

I looked around the command line switches and manpages for the XFS and
fsck commands, and could not find anything relevant.

So I bring it to this mailing list:

Are there Linux equivalents for the XFS filesystem for chkdsk (fsck -n
seemed like the only possibility and it does not work) or defrag?

Perhaps the way XFS runs, defrag is useless/not required. But it would be
nice to be able to check filesystem consistency (while it's mounted, so
it'd be read-only checking obviously) before something happens or while
it's not in the process of booting the machine.

defrag was only really ever necessary on FAT and FAT32 systems. it can help NTFS some though. There arent' any defrag utils for most nix filesystems because they do a good job of keeping the fragmentation down below the 5% mark without any help.


as far as chkdsk, again, unix this isn't necessary nor beneficial to run manually. XFS even less so. whent he system boots it takes a quick look at the state of the filesystems. if any need repairing it will do it on it's own, presuming they're listed in /etc/fstab. if not you can call the correct fsck for the filesytem you're using if you really want to, but it's not necessary. XFS journal's all transactions, so the only time you need to fsck it is when you have a bug, or a hardware error.

besides that unix/linux filesystems, even the worst of them, are almost all universally more stable, and faster, than Windows and DOS variants.


Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,
mike






-- Undocumented Features quote of the moment... "It's not the one bullet with your name on it that you have to worry about; it's the twenty thousand-odd rounds labeled `occupant.'" --Murphy's Laws of Combat


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