On 27 April 2011 10:11, PMA <peterarmstr...@aya.yale.edu> wrote: > I'm missing a detail here. Was the assertion re FSCK > specifically that XFS doesn't call this exec during boot, > or was it that under XFS, FSCK can't be called at all? > (And -- for whichever -- why so?)
No, it's because somebody asked advice concerning which filesystem was better and why. After that, Stan the Baptist emerged from the desert and required all of us to convert to XFS immediately. Unfortunately, some of us are free-thinkers and other heretics, but the luxury of putting us up against the wall and shooting us, after suitable torture techniques have been indulged in (which would be subject matter enough for another thread), has not, as yet, been approved of by the almighty and we are stuck with opposing points of view rather than eradicating them as in accordance with the aura of grace which some of us possess (I do not lay claim to this commodity for myself. I'm one of the advocates of free-will heresy). We are, instead, forced into the position of having to debate the situation and be guided by the element of informed free-will, rather than the dictates of modern concepts of theocracy. About sums it up. Welcome! Regards, Weaver. > > > > Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 04/26/2011 04:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> >>> Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26/2011 9:29 AM: >>> >>>> On 04/26/2011 02:41 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm CC'ing back to debian-user as I believe others may find this >>>>> information useful. >>>>> >>>>> Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 11:15 PM: >>>>> >>>>> Stan: "Thus moving to EXT4 gains you nothing on a 32 bit machine," >>>>>> >>>>>> Ron: It gives me the ability to do a fsck! >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only on rare occasions should one _need_ to run xfs_check or >>>>> xfs_repair. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Only one rare occasions should one *need* to change a tire. Yet we >>>> still carry one in the trunk/boot. >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The reason why you use a 32 bit system is irrelevant to me. Though up >>>>> to this point I assumed we were discussing a server. Regardless, use >>>>> 'xfs_repair -n" instead of xfs_check and you should be good to go, >>>>> again, assuming 'xfs_repair -n' doesn't run out of memory on your >>>>> machine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> As I expect storage capacity to do nothing but grow, I'm not going to >>>> take that chance. >>>> >>> >>> It seems strange to me that you're so adamant WRT ditching XFS on a whim >>> due to a well known problem WRT which you seem to have performed little >>> or zero basic research of your own. >>> >> >> Silly me took for granted that you can fsck your fs. >> >> This is odd for someone who >>> apparently uses a given piece of software in production, and such a >>> critical piece at that. People don't normally chuck production >>> filesystems, especially the best Linux filesystem, on a whim without at >>> least doing some basic research into a problem. >>> >>> >> Don't ass-u-me. Business isn't the only reason that people have really >> large filesystems. Think HTPC. >> >> [snip] >> >>> >>> The first I recall seeing you mention this issue was in rebuttal to my >>> evangelism of XFS. Strange, that. This saga likely prompts people to >>> wonder about your motivations in this thread, and the validity of the >>> information you've provided and claims you've made. >>> >>> >> My motivation is "full disclosure". >> >> I originally created my two big file systems as xfs because I've seen >> many benchmarks showing how well it performs w/ big files. And it does. >> Really, Really Well. >> >> But not being able to fsck the fs that I just created is unacceptable. >> >> > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a > subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db75f4d.8060...@aya.yale.edu > > -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annæus Seneca. Terrorism, the new religion.
