Re: xfs_scrub: call for testing

[Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@intellique.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1820 bytes --]

Le Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:49:41 -0600
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net> écrivait:

> > 
> > Wouldn't it be better to remove the parts about repairing the
> > filesystem in the documentation? The man page states that it *can't*
> > repair the filesystem, but nonetheless explains under which
> > circumstances it *won't* be able to repair (in some theoretical
> > future version with repair capabilities, I suppose). Ditto with the
> > -n and -y option, I suppose they're both basically noop at the
> > moment? That's quite unclear what it actually does.  
> 
> I'll take another look at the manpage.  The userspace tool today /can/
> do some degree of optimization or repair if the kernel supports it,
> so I was reluctant to suggest removing all such language.
> 
> So, "-n" is not a no-op, it's a check-only ("scrub") pass vs. the
> default no-argument action of "optimizing," or the extra -y action
> which would repair. If that's not all clear, I'd appreciate
> suggestions to clean it up.
> 

Now I'm wondering: is the default option of "optimizing" really
useful? Wouldn't it be better to simply have a check-only (-n) version,
and a full-fledged version when given no argument? 
Or maybe do a simple optimisation, optionally,  when given the '-y' (or
some other flag) option? 

I say that after having a look at man pages from some comparable
utilities, namely xfs_repair, btrfs_scrub and "zpool scrub", who all
default to "full operation" without options.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac     |   Direction technique
                    |   Intellique
                    |	<eflorac@intellique.com>
                    |   +33 1 78 94 84 02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: Signature digitale OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]