| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:33:34 +0200 From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com> To: Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...wizard.nl> Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: fsck performance. On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Rogier Wolff <R.E.Wolff@...wizard.nl> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:59:23AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >> That tool is e2image -r, which creates a sparse file image of your >> fs (only metadata is written, the rest is holes), so you need to be >> careful when copying/transferring it to another machine to do it >> wisely (i.e. bzip or dd directly to a new HDD) Not sure what you >> will do if fsck fixes errors on that image... Mostly (if it didn't >> clone multiply claimed blocks for example), you would be able to >> write the fixed image back onto your original fs, but that would be >> risky. > > I can then run the fsck tests on the image. I expect fsck to find > errors: I'm using the filesystem when I'm making that image.... It > won't be consistent. > So you probably won't learn a lot from fsck results, unless you only want to provide memusage/runtime statistic as per Andreas request. You have the option to use NEXT3 so take a snapshot of your fs, while it is online, but I don't suppose you would want to experiment on your backup server. Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists