On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:22:01PM +1100, Tim Connors wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2012, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:01:18PM +1100, Tim Connors wrote:
[ ... xfs_repair ... ]
Now if only there was a fsck.xfs and regular checks every ~20 mounts.
alternatively, and with 50% less facetiousness, you can even make ext[234] filesystems behave in a non-annoying manner:
tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/ext[234]partition
But didn't you just demonstrate why regular checks are a Good Idea?
no, how? on the contrary, if the machine has crashed then you should run a check. or if you suspect there's a problem. the user having a clue is a Good Idea. IMO automatic time-interval and mount-count fscks are stupid. i don't see that they do anything useful. they just cause me to be annoyed by a long fsck on every reboot because I (typically) reboot my systems once every six months or more. or 20 times in an hour trying to solve some problem (and no, i don't need an auto-fsck every 5th or 10th reboot, i want to get on with solving whatever problem i'm working on)>
Bad shit sometimes happens, and better to know about it than silently ignore it.
who said anything about ignoring the bad shit that happens? not me.
Personally, I use Ted Tso's trick to taking LVM snapshots and 'e2fsck -fy'ing the snapshot. If it succeeds, tune2fs the original device
that sounds worthwhile. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au> BOFH excuse #312: incompatible bit-registration operators