1 |
Hi Boyd. |
2 |
|
3 |
On 28/03/07, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. <bss03@××××××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> On Wednesday 28 March 2007, "Jeff Rollin" <jeff.rollin@×××××.com> wrote |
5 |
> about 'SOLVED: Recover from LVM errors? (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] Help - |
6 |
> system reboots while compiling)': |
7 |
> > Ignore the following if you don't like minirants. |
8 |
> (My reply probably needs the same disclaimer.) |
9 |
> |
10 |
> > 1. Frankly, I'm not impressed with Linux in this case*. /var is not a |
11 |
> > "mission critical" filesystem in the sense that if it contains errors, |
12 |
> > it can still be mounted and the errors don't necessarily mean the |
13 |
> > system won't come up. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> By that definition, no filesystem I can think of is "mission critial", they |
16 |
> will all withstand some damage and still let your system come up. /var is |
17 |
> *at least* as important as /usr -- I can easily recover the contents |
18 |
> of /usr in case of critical failure, but reconstructing /var is damn near |
19 |
> impossible. Also, /usr can generally be very useful with just r/o access, |
20 |
> while /var needs to be r/w to fill it's role. |
21 |
|
22 |
That's true. |
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> Also, forcing a mount of a damaged filesystem is asking for trouble. |
26 |
> Dangling inodes (or similar) can cause cascading failure; at best some |
27 |
> processes will read garbage and crash (or, ideally, "magically" recover) |
28 |
> at worst good data on the disk will be overwritten with bad. File locks on |
29 |
> a damaged filesystem are meaningless since two files (not simply two |
30 |
> dirents like with a hard link, but two unrelated files) might share disk |
31 |
> sectors. |
32 |
|
33 |
It IS a bad idea, but it's not like I "forced" a mount; the system |
34 |
came up normally and functioned normally until it hit a damaged inode, |
35 |
whereupon it crashed with nary an indication of what had gone wrong. |
36 |
|
37 |
> |
38 |
> The system should definitely refuse to mount damaged file systems by |
39 |
> default or *at the very least* mount them read-only. |
40 |
|
41 |
Agreed, definitely. |
42 |
|
43 |
I wouldn't mind and |
44 |
> interactive prompt to force mounting a damaged filesystem, but I'd need a |
45 |
> way to turn that off for unattended systems. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> -- |
48 |
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. |
49 |
> bss03@××××××××××.net ((_/)o o(\_)) |
50 |
> ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' |
51 |
> http://iguanasuicide.org/ \_/ |
52 |
> |
53 |
> |
54 |
|
55 |
Jeff. |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Q: What will happen in the Aftermath? |
59 |
|
60 |
A: Impossible to tell, since we're still in the Beforemath. |
61 |
|
62 |
http://latedeveloper.org.uk |
63 |
-- |
64 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |