| To: | Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sean Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Corrupted files |
| From: | Sean Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:03:56 -0400 |
| Cc: | "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <CAA43vkXwHF9RHW-cbTZ91_vF6wiQ6o_+TQDL3=7kD9P4tErCNQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <540F1B01.3020700@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAA43vkXwHF9RHW-cbTZ91_vF6wiQ6o_+TQDL3=7kD9P4tErCNQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
OK, let me retract just a tiny fraction of what I said originally; thinking about it further, there was _one_ time I was able to use xfs_repair to successfully recover a "lightly bruised" XFS and return it to service. But in that case, the fault was very minor and I always check first with: xfs_repair [-L] -n -v <filesystem> and give the output a good looking over before proceeding further. If it won't run without zeroing the log, you can take that as a sign that things are getting dire.. I wouldn't bother to run xfs_repair "for real" if the trial output looked even slightly non-trivial, in cases of underlying array failure or massive filesystem corruption, and I'd never run it without mounting and scavenging first (unless I had a very recent full backup). Barring rare cases, xfs_repair is bad juju. Best, Sean On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Sean Caron <scaron@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Corrupted files, Sean Caron |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Corrupted files, Emmanuel Florac |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Corrupted files, Sean Caron |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Corrupted files, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |