* Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
@ 2011-11-21 21:53 Richard Scobie
2011-11-21 22:37 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Scobie @ 2011-11-21 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used in
preference to xfs_repair?
If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
Regards,
Richard
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
2011-11-21 21:53 [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check Richard Scobie
@ 2011-11-21 22:37 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz @ 2011-11-21 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs; +Cc: Richard Scobie
On Monday 21 of November 2011, Richard Scobie wrote:
> Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used in
> preference to xfs_repair?
>
> If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
There was a such idea but:
21:25 < sandeen_> well, it has a lot of use in xfstests, so it's nice to have
built & around, I think.
--
Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz PLD/Linux Team
arekm / maven.pl http://ftp.pld-linux.org/
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
2011-11-21 21:53 [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check Richard Scobie
2011-11-21 22:37 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
@ 2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-22 4:32 ` Eric Sandeen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-11-22 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Scobie; +Cc: xfs
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote:
> Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used
> in preference to xfs_repair?
>
> If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the
right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare
results is a good thing.....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2011-11-22 4:32 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-22 5:27 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Eric Sandeen @ 2011-11-22 4:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Richard Scobie, xfs
On 11/21/11 6:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote:
>> Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used
>> in preference to xfs_repair?
>>
>> If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
>
> xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the
> right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare
> results is a good thing.....
What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need
for end users to be comparing xfs_check against xfs_repair in general,
anyway ...
Often enough I see users using xfs_check just because it's there,
and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the
casual user against it, or at least recommend xfs_repair -n
instead. What do you think?
-Eric
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
2011-11-22 4:32 ` Eric Sandeen
@ 2011-11-22 5:27 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-11-22 5:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Richard Scobie, xfs
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:32:07PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/21/11 6:23 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:53:16AM +1300, Richard Scobie wrote:
> >> Is there currently now any situation where xfs_check would be used
> >> in preference to xfs_repair?
> >>
> >> If not, perhaps xfs_check could be deprecated.
> >
> > xfs_check is one of the ways we test that xfs_repair is doing the
> > right thing. Having two implementation that you can use to compare
> > results is a good thing.....
>
> What about for end users though? I'm not sure there's much need
> for end users to be comparing xfs_check against xfs_repair in general,
> anyway ...
Right, but that doesn't mean it needs deprecating as that implies
complete removal at some point in the future. I'd prefer to keep it
around as we get most of what it does for free as it uses the xfs_db
infrastructure to do all it's work.
> Often enough I see users using xfs_check just because it's there,
> and running into trouble... it seems reasonable to warn the
> casual user against it, or at least recommend xfs_repair -n
> instead. What do you think?
The patch to modify the man page to advise use of xfs_repair is
sufficient, I think.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check.
@ 2011-11-21 20:49 Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz @ 2011-11-21 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xfs
I see "use xfs_repair instead of xfs_check" hint on xfs@irc, mailing
lists and other places but the first source of information (xfs_check
man page) doesn't mention this. Improve that.
Signed-off-by: Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz <arekm@maven.pl>
---
man/man8/xfs_check.8 | 6 ++++++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/man/man8/xfs_check.8 b/man/man8/xfs_check.8
index 33c3894..620d0fc 100644
--- a/man/man8/xfs_check.8
+++ b/man/man8/xfs_check.8
@@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ flag. The filesystem should normally be unmounted or read-only
during the execution of
.BR xfs_check .
Otherwise, spurious problems are reported.
+.PP
+Note that using
+.B xfs_check
+is NOT recommended. Please use
+.BR xfs_repair " " \-n
+instead, for better scalability and speed.
.SH
OPTIONS
.TP
--
1.7.7.3
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-11-22 5:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-11-21 21:53 [PATCH] xfs_repair is recommended over xfs_check Richard Scobie
2011-11-21 22:37 ` Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
2011-11-22 0:23 ` Dave Chinner
2011-11-22 4:32 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-11-22 5:27 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-11-21 20:49 Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox