From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DBE37F76 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:09:09 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF168F8050 for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mKRpVCd9jK4dYaqu for ; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 22:09:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <540FDCF4.3020202@sandeen.net> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:09:08 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Corrupted files References: <540F1B01.3020700@mygrande.net> <540F7E37.7020500@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Sean Caron Cc: Leslie Rhorer , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" On 9/9/14 5:57 PM, Sean Caron wrote: > Hey, just sharing some hard-won (believe me) professional experience. > I have seen xfs_repair take a bad situation and make it worse many > times. I don't know that a filesystem fuzzer or any other simulation > can ever provide true simulation of users absolutely pounding the tar > out of a system. There seems to be a real disconnect between what > developers are able to test and observe directly, and what happens in > the production environment in a very high-throughput environment. > > Best, > > Sean Fair enough, but I don't want to let stand an assertion that you should avoid xfs_repair at all (most) costs. It, like almost any software, has some bugs, but they don't get fixed if they don't get well reported. We do our best to improve it when we get useful reports from users - usually including a metadata dump - and we beat on it as best we can in the lab. "pounding the tar out of a filesystem" should not, in general, require an xfs_repair run. ;) Yes, it's always good advice to do a dry run before committing to a repair, in case something goes off the rails. But most times I've seen things go very very badly was when the storage device under the filesystem was no longer consistent, and the filesystem really had no pieces to pick up. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs