From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mBPHscOm022016 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:54:38 -0600 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0D60647DE9 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:54:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id oCFr7h57dR6DU9Qi for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2008 09:54:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4953C8B8.4010500@sandeen.net> Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:54:00 -0600 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] xfs_repair: allow filesystems with a single AG References: <20081224231901.GA652@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081224231901.GA652@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Currently xfs_repair bails out on a filesystem with just a single AG. > But that's a perfectly valid configureation, so we should allow it. > > Skip the geomery validation because we simply can't do it if we don't > have a secondary SB, and make sure to take the internal log into account > when guestimating the first inode cluster. > > I'll also cook up a testcase for repair on single AG filesystems. While I think we should certainly allow this, what's the worst-case scenario for a corrupted superblock when we can't validate it and continue with repair? I wonder if something like # xfs_repair --allow-single-sb should be required, with some man page docs suggesting a run with -n first etc to be sure that garbled geometry doesn't trash the whole thing...? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs