From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: online fsck
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:51:12 -0700
Message-ID: <40880610.9050207@namesys.com>
References: <20040422150042.5b49c6c3.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <1082640853.12989.54.camel@watt.suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-18159-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <1082640853.12989.54.camel@watt.suse.com>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
To: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Jure_Pe=E8ar?= <pegasus@nerv.eu.org>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Vitaly Fertman <vitaly@namesys.com>

Chris Mason wrote:

>On Thu, 2004-04-22 at 09:00, Jure Pe=E8ar wrote:
> =20
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Is it theoretically posible?
>>
>>Like, does it need a drastic redesing of reiserfs or just sufficient $$
>>directed to the team to be implemented?
>>
>>
>>Because i think that reiserfsck --check in 12h + --rebuild-tree in 18h is
>>still waaay too much downtime for a 500gb mail server...
>>   =20
>>
>
>Online check is easy, just use lvm or evms to make a snapshot and then
>check the snapshot.=20
>
Requires that users use lvm before discovering the need for fsck, but,=20
yes.  What would be ideal would be some support for finding the=20
inconsistency on the snapshot, and then fixing it on the real fs using=20
the information learned from the snapshot fsck.

> Online rebuild tree would be impossible by
>definition (since it throws out everything above the leaf level and
>rebuilds).
>
>-chris
>
>
>
>
> =20
>