Indeed xfs_repair doesn't require the abusive amount of memory xfs_check requires. I've been a happy XFS user for a few years now, but the fact the xfsprogs aren't being maintained properly and xfs_check is still a failure, I'm considering other alternatives. A filesystem that provides speed and a small footprint on the array for its master file table is great, but a filesystem that has maintained tools and tools that work well in case of data corruption is a preferred one, at least to me. I almost lost 5.5TB worth of data recently and the tools available made it really hard to fix problems. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Leslie Rhorer <lrhorer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Leslie, >> >> How do you check xfs? xfs_check? > > Yes. > >> Why not use xfs_repair -n? > > I guess the short answer is, "I didn't know it would make a > difference". I take it, then, xfs_repair uses a completely different method > of scanning for errors than xfs_check, one whihcdoes not require so much > memory? I find that a bit surprising. > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Majed B. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
