[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1173191227.11804.9.camel@systems03.mmm.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:27:07 -0500
From: Daniel Drake <ddrake@...ntes3d.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e2fsck and human intervention
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:40 +0800, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> As Ted said, if e2fsck detects anything wrong then this IS corruption
> of some kind. It might indicate that your disks are writing with
> cache enabled and losing some writes that had been reported to the
> kernel as committed to disk.
Entirely possible, I'll look into that. Thanks for the pointer.
> > Are there any better approaches than something like the following?
> >
> > 1. Run "e2fsck -p /"
> >
> > 2. If bit 3 is set in exit code (i.e. preen functionality detected
> > unexpected inconsistency) then run "e2fsck -y /"
>
> This is no better than just running "e2fsck -y" in the first place,
> just twice as slow.
OK. Given that write caching may be required for performance reasons or
there might be other possible reasons which would result in
preen-unrepairable fs corruption on power loss, my question is now: Is
it a really bad idea to run "e2fsck -y" on every boot?
I'm not expecting magic: I realise that in such configurations there is
risk of data loss. However, every time I have seen preen fail so far,
running "e2fsck -y" gets things back into bootable state and I'm simply
wondering how much potential trouble I would be getting myself into by
automating this.
Thanks.
--
Daniel Drake
Brontes Technologies, A 3M Company
-
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