From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 27 May 2008 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4RGlcbd024030 for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:47:38 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C9917BEED9B for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id ztWTxCPsCnOn7Ouq for ; Tue, 27 May 2008 09:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <483C3B5C.3040407@sandeen.net> Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:48:28 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: xfs_check References: <20080527162605.GA30344@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20080527162605.GA30344@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > In the past we had quite a few cases where we told people to run > xfs_repair -n instead of xfs_check. I think that makes a lot of sense > because xfs_repair -n generally gives output at least as useful as > xfs_check if not more so and also is a lot faster. Is there any reason > why we shouldn't simply kill xfs_check and replaced it with a wrapper > around xfs_repair? > > xfs_check checks... $SOMETHING that xfs_repair still does not, I think? But, if you can't run it on any fs of reasonable size due to memory piggishness, then... *shrug* -Eric