On 12Oct2016 08:40, Gordon Messmer <gordon.messmer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/12/2016 06:40 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
"Never needs fsck"? What crazy alternate reality do you live in?
It's only slightly exaggerated. XFS has online fsck, which means that
the kernel can fix some errors as it encounters them. Others... well,
I *have* seen XFS require an offline fsck on a Linux NAS appliance, so I know
"never" isn't literally true.
Except it the wildest scenarios, XFS fsks at mount, almost immediately. Go and
cat (yes, cat) the fsck.xfs command. Its data processes are reliable and well
behaved, and it is extensively tested.
"Never" is indeed not _literally_ true, but it is effectively true, far far far
far more than is so with ext4. Ext4 really needs fsck after an unclean unmount,
and it is not cheap for large filesystems.
The two are like night and day in the recovery scenario (== xfs pretty much
never needs manual recovery, and recover is very fast). Even mkfs is light
night and day with xfs vs ext4.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
