Message-ID: <60808.198.182.194.170.1199827911.squirrel@clueserver.org>
In-Reply-To: <200801090022.55589.a1426z@gawab.com>
References: <200801090022.55589.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:31:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [RFD] Incremental fsck
From: "Alan" <alan@clueserver.org>
To: "Al Boldi" <a1426z@gawab.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.10a-1.fc6
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1175
Lines: 25

> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
>> > Now, there are good reasons for doing periodic checks every N mounts
>> > and after M months.  And it has to do with PC class hardware.  (Ted's
>> > aphorism: "PC class hardware is cr*p").
>>
>> If these reasons are good ones (some skepticism here) then the correct
>> way to really handle this would be to do regular background scrubbing
>> during runtime; ideally with metadata checksums so that you can actually
>> detect all corruption.
>>
>> But since fsck is so slow and disks are so big this whole thing
>> is a ticking time bomb now. e.g. it is not uncommon to require tens
>> of minutes or even hours of fsck time and some server that reboots
>> only every few months will eat that when it happens to reboot.
>> This means you get a quite long downtime.
>
> Has there been some thought about an incremental fsck?

Is that anything like a cluster fsck? ]:>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/