From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40774 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753419AbbKXROh (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Nov 2015 12:14:37 -0500 Subject: Re: shall distros run btrfsck on boot? To: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <1448337754.14125.33.camel@scientia.net> <1448340211.14125.44.camel@scientia.net> From: Eric Sandeen Message-ID: <56549AFB.3040904@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:14:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/24/15 12:56 AM, Duncan wrote: > Duncan posted on Tue, 24 Nov 2015 06:46:18 +0000 as excerpted: > >> That wouldn't be entirely uncommon, because as Eric mentions, btrfs >> check is intended to be thorough, where the kernel mount-time check is >> intended to be fast. >> >> But of course, as Eric also mentions, that's yet another reason you >> don't want btrfs check running at boot... it's *SSLLLOOWWWWW*, because >> it's being thorough. > > Oops! Mis-attribution. Qu not Eric. > > (I had read both replies in my email but only saw Eric's on the list, > which I read in my news client via gmane's list2news service, when I > composed the above. So I presumed the points I remembered being made > were from Eric's post, when it was Qu's.) Yeah, I don't think that being thorough requires being slow. ;) In a nutshell, though, I think a filesystem repair should be an admin-initiated action, not something that surprises you on a boot, at least for a journaling filesystem which is designed to maintain its integrity even in the face of a power loss or crash. -Eric