What's the Damage? Measuring fsck Under XFS and Ext4 On Big Storage 196
An anonymous reader writes "Enterprise Storage Forum's long-awaited Linux file system Fsck testing is finally complete. Find out just how bad the Linux file system scaling problem really is."
fsck speed, want safety (Score:3, Insightful)
How fast a full fsck scan is is my last concern. What about how successful they are at recovering the filesystem?
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Insightful)
If you need to fsck you should already be restoring from backups onto another machine.
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Insightful)
More helpful advice from the Linux community. Thank you ever so much, once again right on point, timely, and effective.
Who would engineer a storage system like that? (Score:2, Insightful)
A single file system that big without checking features that file systems like ZFS or clustering file stores provide seems insane to me.
Re:linux is fail (Score:5, Insightful)
A cranky coward from the shadows is not s reliable source of information.
I have used AIX and Solaris, and I can say that a lot of stuff is easier on Linux.
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're in a scenario where "Backups are not really an option", somebody is doing something wrong...
How long did it take you to get to 0.5PB? If you use a differential backup/sync, then you should generally only need to copy *NEW* data, and the old stuff will already be there.
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people are worried more about cost then reliability.
Most people is often a category that does not do things the best way or the right way.
Re:fsck speed, want safety (Score:4, Insightful)