On Thursday 22 April 2004 12:45, Nikita Danilov wrote: > Chris Dukes writes: > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 04:24:02PM +0200, Jure Pe??ar wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:34:14 -0400 > > > > > > Chris Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Online check is easy, just use lvm or evms to make a snapshot and > > > > then check the snapshot. Online rebuild tree would be impossible by > > > > definition (since it throws out everything above the leaf level and > > > > rebuilds). > > > > > > Well yes, one can do --check on ro mounted fs. > > > > > > I was thinking about fixing things up on an active rw filesystem ... > > > where if something is found that does not look right, it is reported > > > and fixed on the fly. > > > > It is worth mentioning that FreeBSD supposedly has an online in the > > background fsck for UFS2. > > Wait a second. Assuming that kernel code has no bugs, the only > corruption that may happen when soft-updates are used is leaked disk > space. As I understand it, FreeBSD's background fsck fixes this problem > and only it. > > But, under the same assumption, journalled file system needs _no_ fsck > at all. > > > I don't know the implementation details as I am busy fighting XF86 4.4 > > on FreeBSD. > > > > > So is it theoretically posible to fix stuff like these on the fly? > > > > -- > > Chris Dukes > > Been there, done that, got the slightly-charred t-shirt. -- Crowder > > Nikita. That's exactly my thought. Wasn't write cache enabled on those disks ? That certainly would defeat any journaling filesystem.
Marcelo Pacheco
