[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XFS trouble (!)
- To: Ajay Shekhawat <ajay@cedar.buffalo.edu>
- Subject: Re: XFS trouble (!)
- From: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 10:20:38 +1100
- Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
- In-reply-to: <20021130180602.GC18501@zaurak.cedar.Buffalo.EDU>; from ajay@cedar.buffalo.edu on Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500
- References: <20021130000059.GA18501@zaurak.cedar.Buffalo.EDU> <20021130135526.A526752@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20021130035148.GB18501@zaurak.cedar.Buffalo.EDU> <20021130154031.B526752@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20021130180602.GC18501@zaurak.cedar.Buffalo.EDU>
- Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 01:06:02PM -0500, Ajay Shekhawat wrote:
> I gave the command
> uuid <uuid printed by xfs_db>
> in xfs_db, and it was able to mount the filesystem. Everything _appears_
> to be there, though it is difficult to check quickly.
>
> So what are my options now: should I do a 'xfs_check' again?
Since your last run didn't seem to report any problems and the
log is no longer corrupt, I would say there is unlikely to be
any benefit from running it again (esp. since it takes so long
for you).
> Should I migrate to the latest CVS branch? It is a production machine,
> though, and I'm not sure if the latest bleeding edge release is
> the way to go (if something happens, a lot of sharp soon-to-be-bleeding
> edges will head my way).
I would stick with the 1.2[pre] tree for a production machine,
there are still known issues in the development CVS tree which
are not present in 1.2.
cheers.
--
Nathan