On 10/29/10 7:31 AM, Peter Kjellström wrote:
> On Friday 29 October 2010 11:42:38 przemolicc@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we have CentOS ftp server (vsftpd) which has a lot of users who are writing
>> and reading a lot of small files from/into its own accounts (and other
>> servers - using samba client - are reading these files and putting them
>> into outside database).
>> Since this server is under heavy load its availability is important.
>>
>> > From time to time we "crash" this server (don't ask why ...) but then fsck
>>> is running for over 20-30 minuts.
>>
>> The question is: is there any other _stable_ filesystem (xfs ?, jfs ?)
>> which we can use instead of ext3 which is (quite) immune to crashes and
>> whose fsck is "faster" (by design) then in ext3 ?
>
> The idea with ext3/ext4 is that you don't have to run a full fsck after a
> system crash (only a fully automated journal replay).
>
> XFS uses the same idea (no fsck only journal replay). But if you really want
> to fsck an xfs filesystem then that too will take a lot of time.
The question is, are the fsck's happening because the journal is corrupted,
because something is wrong with it, or because a journal isn't configured or the
'time to check' has expired. In the latter case you can adjust with tune2fs.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
