lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check
    From
    Date
    Hi Gang,

    On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, Gang He wrote:
    > Hi Mark and Junxiao,
    >
    >
    >>>>
    >> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 04:20:27PM +0800, Junxiao Bi wrote:
    >>> Hi Gang,
    >>>
    >>> On 11/03/2015 03:54 PM, Gang He wrote:
    >>>> Hi Junxiao,
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank for your reviewing.
    >>>> Current design, we use a sysfile as a interface to check/fix a file (via
    >> pass a ino number).
    >>>> But, this operation is manually triggered by user, instead of automatically
    >> fix in the kernel.
    >>>> Why?
    >>>> 1) we should let users make this decision, since some users do not want to
    >> fix when encountering a file system corruption, maybe they want to keep the
    >> file system unchanged for a further investigation.
    >>> If user don't want this, they should not use error=continue option, let
    >>> fs go after a corruption is very dangerous.
    >>
    >> Maybe we need another errors=XXX flag (maybe errors=fix)?
    >>
    >> You both make good points, here's what I gather from the conversation:
    >>
    >> - Some customers would be sad if they have to manually fix corruptions.
    >> This takes effort on their part, and if the FS can handle it
    >> automatically, it should.
    >>
    >> - There are valid concerns that automatically fixing things is a change in
    >> behavior that might not be welcome, or worse might lead to unforseeable
    >> circumstances.
    >>
    >> - I will add that fixing things automatically implies checking them
    >> automatically which could introduce some performance impact depending on
    >> how much checking we're doing.
    >>
    >> So if the user wants errors to be fixed automatically, they could mount with
    >> errros=fix, and everyone else would have no change in behavior unless they
    >> wanted to make use of the new feature.
    > That is what I want to say, add a mount option to let users to decide. Here, I want to split "error=fix"
    > mount option task out from online file check feature, I think this part should be a independent feature.
    > We can implement this feature after online file check is done, I want to split the feature into some more
    > detailed features, implement them one by one. Do you agree this point?
    With error=fix, when a possible corruption is found, online fsck will
    start to check and fix things. So this doesn't looks like a independent
    feature.

    Thanks,
    Junxiao.

    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>> 2) frankly speaking, this feature will probably bring a second corruption
    >> if there is some error in the code, I do not suggest to use automatically fix
    >> by default in the first version.
    >>> I think if this feature could bring more corruption, then this should be
    >>> fixed first.
    >>
    >> Btw, I am pretty sure that Gang is referring to the feature being new and
    >> thus more likely to have problems. There is nothing I see in here that is
    >> file system corrupting.
    >> --Mark
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> Mark Fasheh
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-11-25 06:01    [W:2.574 / U:0.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site