Re: ext4_clear_journal_err: Filesystem error recorded from previous mount: IO failure

[Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@redhat.com>]

  On 10/23/2010 06:17 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 06:00:05PM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
>> IMHO, and I've said it before, the mount flag which Bernd requests
>> already exists, namely 'errors=', both as mount option and as
>> persistent default, but it is not enforced correctly on mount time.
>> If an administrator decides that the correct behavior when error is
>> detected is abort or remount-ro, what's the sense it letting the
>> filesystem mount read-write without fixing the problem?
> Again, consider the case of the root filesystem containing an error.
> When the error is first discovered during the source of the system's
> operation, and it's set to errors=panic, you want to immediately
> reboot the system.  But then, when root file system is mounted, it
> would be bad to have the system immediately panic again.  Instead,
> what you want to have happen is to allow e2fsck to run, correct the
> file system errors, and then system can go back to normal operation.
>
> So the current behavior was deliberately designed to be the way that
> it is, and the difference is between "what do you do when you come
> across a file system error", which is what the errors= mount option is
> all about, and "this file system has some kind of error associated
> with it".  Just because it has an error associated with it does not
> mean that immediately rebooting is the right thing to do, even if the
> file system is set to "errors=panic".  In fact, in the case of a root
> file system, it is manifestly the wrong thing to do.  If we did what
> you suggested, then the system would be trapped in a reboot loop
> forever.
>
> 							- Ted

I am still fuzzy on the use case here.

In any shared ext* file system (pacemaker or other), you have some basic rules:

* you cannot have the file system mounted on more than one node
* failover must fence out any other nodes before starting recovery
* failover (once the node is assured that it is uniquely mounting the file 
system) must do any recovery required to clean up the state

Using ext* (or xfs) in an active/passive cluster with fail over rules that 
follow the above is really common today.

I don't see what the use case here is - are we trying to pretend that pacemaker 
+ ext* allows us to have a single, shared file system in a cluster mounted on 
multiple nodes?

Why not use ocfs2 or gfs2 for that?

Thanks!

Ric