Kent Borg wrote:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 03:10:48PM -0500, Ryan Babchishin wrote:
nate wrote:
there sure is! provided you don't mind even more curroption to your
filesystem tell fsck to force check. it will cause massive damage I bet :)
Ok, I'll get right on that!
Um, so you really *are* going to force fsck on a read/write file
system? If so, that sounds like a serious mistake.
I was being sarcastic. It was a silly suggestion in the first place.
first, terminate all processes that are using the filesystem, then
mount /filesystem -o remount,ro
and run fsck on it.
Unfortunately, I don't really have that option in my environment.
What happens if you *do* pick an hour with low usage and run a safe
fsck?
There are no real low usage hours in my environment. There are lower
usage hours.
In comparison, what happens if your server simply crashes and won't
restart?, or if lots of user data gets corrupted or lost? It seems
clear to me that there is a choice here and the first case is the
better one.
It will restart just fine even if the whole disk array fails. If we
determine it is nessesary to deal with it now, we will, but at the
moment it's realy only a minor filesystem error that our custom software
doesn't deal well with.
But I am wondering whether in the first case you will be blamed for
the downtime, and so you are hoping that in the (worse) second case no
one will point the finger at you?
Not really, it's not my fault the FS is in error. I just fix things. :)
-kb, the Kent who must be misunderstanding something.
- Ryan
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
