On 9/9/14 5:57 PM, Sean Caron wrote:
Hey, just sharing some hard-won (believe me) professional experience. I have seen xfs_repair take a bad situation and make it worse many times. I don't know that a filesystem fuzzer or any other simulation can ever provide true simulation of users absolutely pounding the tar out of a system. There seems to be a real disconnect between what developers are able to test and observe directly, and what happens in the production environment in a very high-throughput environment. Best, Sean
Fair enough, but I don't want to let stand an assertion that you should avoid xfs_repair at all (most) costs. It, like almost any software, has some bugs, but they don't get fixed if they don't get well reported. We do our best to improve it when we get useful reports from users - usually including a metadata dump - and we beat on it as best we can in the lab. "pounding the tar out of a filesystem" should not, in general, require an xfs_repair run. ;) Yes, it's always good advice to do a dry run before committing to a repair, in case something goes off the rails. But most times I've seen things go very very badly was when the storage device under the filesystem was no longer consistent, and the filesystem really had no pieces to pick up. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
