On 8/27/19 2:10 PM, dann frazier wrote: > hey, > I'm curious if there's a policy about what types of unclean > shutdowns 'e2fsck -p' can recover, vs. what the kernel will > automatically recover on mount. We're seeing that unclean shutdowns w/ > data=journal,journal_csum frequently result in invalid checksums that > causes the kernel to abort recovery, while 'e2fsck -p' resolves the > issue non-interactively. > > Driver for this question is that some Ubuntu installs set fstab's > passno=0 for the root fs - which I'm told is based on the assumption > that both kernel & e2fsck -p have parity when it comes to automatic > recovery - that's obviously does not appear to be the case - but I > wanted to confirm whether or not that is by design. > > -dann Ted or others more involved w/ ext4 will speak w/ authority but it's my understanding that log replay, whether done by userspace or by the kernel, should always return the filesystem to a consistent state. If that's not the case, scripting things so that you grab a qcow-format e2image prior to fsck so that you can share the problematic image with developers may help. (In XFS land, a large portion of the unreplayable logs we see are the result of storage that didn't /actually/ persist IOs that it claimed were persisted prior to the crash/poweroff.) -Eric
