[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801121555.54533.phillips@phunq.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:55:53 -0800
From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@...nq.net>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Cc: Alan <alan@...eserver.org>, Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck
On Wednesday 09 January 2008 01:16, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> While an _incremental_ fsck isn't so easy for existing filesystem
> types, what is pretty easy to automate is making a read-only snapshot
> of a filesystem via LVM/DM and then running e2fsck against that. The
> kernel and filesystem have hooks to flush the changes from cache and
> make the on-disk state consistent.
>
> You can then set the the ext[234] superblock mount count and last
> check time via tune2fs if all is well, or schedule an outage if there
> are inconsistencies found.
>
> There is a copy of this script at:
> http://osdir.com/ml/linux.lvm.devel/2003-04/msg00001.html
>
> Note that it might need some tweaks to run with DM/LVM2
> commands/output, but is mostly what is needed.
You can do this now with ddsnap (an out-of-tree device mapper target)
either by checking a local snapshot or a replicated snapshot on a
different machine, see:
http://zumastor.org/
Doing the check on a remote machine seems attractive because the fsck
does not create a load on the server.
Regards,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists