On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Chris Cox <chris_cox@stercomm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 21:58 +0000, David Robinson wrote: > ... >> Usually you'd want to have fsck enabled for your root filesystem, but >> by the looks of it the LV and filesystem you grew _is_ your root >> filesystem... so considering its size, I'd turn it off. Hopefully the >> "fsck takes _forever_" problem will die when btrfs becomes the >> standard filesystem. > > I'm not aware of any feature in btrfs that will prevent > the fsck time issue on very large fs's. > > Until something fairly radical happens in fs design, I'd avoid > very large fs's. btrfs isn't a radically different design? Perhaps I should have rephrased what I said - rather than btrfs being quicker at checking and repairing the filesystem (ala fsck) it (in theory) prevents you from ever needing to fsck in the first place. It basically trusts nothing and checksums everything. A quick look at the features page [1] lists: - Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available) - Online filesystem check - Very fast offline filesystem check [1] http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page --Dave _______________________________________________ linux-lvm mailing list linux-lvm@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
