| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday 18 Sep 2015 17:16:54 Marc Joliet wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Friday 18 September 2015 10:31:01 Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
>> >A couple of months ago the akonadi DB went sideways and kmail played up as |
| 5 |
>> >a result. Again I was suspicious of btrfs, but neither the logs nor fsck |
| 6 |
>> >showed up anything. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I take it "btrfs scrub" didn't turn up anything, or is that what you meant |
| 9 |
>> by fsck? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Am I supposed to run scrub with I do not have a RAID running? I thought scrub |
| 12 |
> was meant for comparing checksums between mirrored fs - have I got this wrong? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You can actually run scrub on a non-raid btrfs setup. Btrfs will |
| 16 |
report any errors that it detects (using the checksumming in the |
| 17 |
filesystem), but it would not be able to fix errors unless you have it |
| 18 |
storing redundant data somewhere (even on non-raid it still stores |
| 19 |
redundant metadata by default, and you can choose to do this with data |
| 20 |
as well which protects against block-level failures but not disk-level |
| 21 |
failures, obviously). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
However, you'd have gotten the same errors in dmesg just trying to |
| 24 |
read the files - btrfs checks the checksum on all file read |
| 25 |
operations. That is a big part of the value of both btrfs and zfs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives