Le Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:53:32 +0200
Roel van Meer <rolek@xxxxxxxxxx> écrivait:
> If someone could confirm (or reject) that, that would be great.
Confirmation granted.
> (By the way, is it necessary to run xfs_repair with -n first? If not,
> are there advantages that would justify the extra time it takes?)
It will indicate what modifications he would have done, before actually
doing them... Like "inode 038953095 corrupted, would remove it" then
"directory not connected, would move content moved to lost+found"
I found that usually xfs_repair is quit quick and never takes much more
than a couple of minutes (even on very big arrays) so you have no valid
reason to skip the "xfs_repair -n" part.
It may be nice to dump the filesystem metadata with xfs_metadump
prior to using xfs_repair too. In the case where the repair's really
gone bad, you could at least revert to the prior less broken state using
xfs_mdrestore...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac | Direction technique
| Intellique
| <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
