On Mar 13, 2018, at 10:36 AM, Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 07:23:44AM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:14:53AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Create an e2scrub_all command to find all ext* filesystems
>>> and run an online scrub against them all.
>>
>> Sorry for not bringing that up before, by why don't we have
>>
>> e2scrub -a
>>
>> instead of this ? Wouldn't it be better to have just one tool ?
>
> I'd rather have two simple tools that each do one thing ("scrub this
> ext4 lvm volume") ("find all ext4 lvm volumes and run scrub") than
> combine them into one less cohesive tool. There's precedence here with
> fsck.$fstype and fsck, where the first one performs an offline check of a
> single filesystem and the second one (if you fsck -A) finds all the
> individual filesystems and feeds them through fsck.$fstype. In the
> longer term it probably makes sense to set up a fsscrub wrapper to
> invoke the fs-specific scrub tools.
>
> Though now that I think about that, e2scrub probably ought to take a
> mount point and translate that into a lvm volume, which makes
> e2scrub_all mostly a dumb iterator of /proc/mounts.
Except that won't scrub offline volumes, nor will all mounted ext4
filesystems be LVs that can be scrubbed, so I don't think that is
an improvement.
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
