Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:37:01 -0800 | From | Mark Fasheh <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ocfs2: sysfile interfaces for online file check |
| |
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 08:29:41PM -0700, 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?
Yeah that's fine, I would have automatic checking turned off though until we have a good plan in place for users who do / don't want this. --Mark
-- Mark Fasheh
| |