Resyncing doesn't "clean up" anything relative to the file system.
If you turn of fsck and let resync finish first you are going to wait a VERY
long time before the file system is accessible (hours and hours).
I have had to fsck + resync several times. The fsck finishes in about the
same time as when the array is in-sync. The fsck works just fine with an
out-of-sync array (either RAID5 or RAID1).
You may get some bad inodes but that is NOT the RAID system fault and resync
won't fix it. It's just because the file system wasn't unmounted correctly
flushing all the tables.
________________________________________
Michael D. Black Principal Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 321-676-2923,x203
http://www.csihq.com Computer Science Innovations
http://www.csihq.com/~mike My home page
FAX 321-676-2355
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cal Thixton - President - ThoughtPort Authority of Chicago"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 10:39 AM
Subject: Re: The meaning of this?
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2000 at 06:28:04PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I think it means you tried to run fsck across an area being resynced.
> >
> > Is this bad? Should the init scirpts be modified to somehow avoid this?
>
> If doing this is causing problems, there's a bug in the RAID code. At the
> filesystem layer, the "device" that the filesystem is on should either be
> there, or it shoudn't be there.
>
> A resync should be transparent to everything else (except that there's a
> bunch of disk i/o ...)
I have wondered this myself. Should filesystems on RAID5 devices not have
fsck turned on in fstab in order to give resync'ing time to clean things up?
Nothing in the docs addresses this and I have seen crashes that results in
both fsck and resync'ing going on at the same time which makes little sense
and takes a very long time to complete on this 56gig device.
thanks
cal
