lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[RFD] Incremental fsck
Date
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:
> > Now, there are good reasons for doing periodic checks every N mounts
> > and after M months. And it has to do with PC class hardware. (Ted's
> > aphorism: "PC class hardware is cr*p").
>
> If these reasons are good ones (some skepticism here) then the correct
> way to really handle this would be to do regular background scrubbing
> during runtime; ideally with metadata checksums so that you can actually
> detect all corruption.
>
> But since fsck is so slow and disks are so big this whole thing
> is a ticking time bomb now. e.g. it is not uncommon to require tens
> of minutes or even hours of fsck time and some server that reboots
> only every few months will eat that when it happens to reboot.
> This means you get a quite long downtime.

Has there been some thought about an incremental fsck?

You know, somehow fencing a sub-dir to do an online fsck?


Thanks for some thoughts!

--
Al



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-01-08 22:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans