LWN.net Logo

fsck / xfs

fsck / xfs

Posted Mar 22, 2007 11:47 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501)
In reply to: fsck / xfs by rfunk
Parent article: The 2007 Linux Storage and File Systems Workshop

I too have found the hard way that yanking the power on XFS (or just hitting reset at a bad time) is a very bad idea. All the files that had pending writes just end up as the correct length of zeros. When this is includes your package database, perl binaries and a load of other libs, this is quite bad.

The xfs_repair tool did do a pretty-good repair job (once I fixed it so it ran! http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=414079) but it did take about 5 hours to do it on a pair of 200GB mirrored drives. Then I got to re-install everything to fix the damage.

About 3 days faff in total. Fair dues though - there was no user-data loss and the system was recoverable, but I've never had this trouble with reiser3 on my laptop or ext3 on other boxes. So, yes, XFS is a really nice filesystem (live resizing, nice and fast) but I'd avoid it unless there is a UPS around.


(Log in to post comments)

fsck / xfs - versus ZFS

Posted Apr 17, 2007 14:06 UTC (Tue) by qu1j0t3 (subscriber, #25786) [Link]

It would be wrong to assume ZFS has the same failure modes as XFS. See, for instance: Bill Moore's blog.

Copyright © 2008, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds