[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fsck journal replay times (was Re: Is this list active?)

On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Ed McKenzie wrote:
> ext2/3 mark the fs as damaged if they encounter anything strange after
> mounting.  Wouldn't this catch most fs corruption and force fsck as
> needed, without unnecessary checking on consistent fses?  That's been
> my experience, anyway -- ext2 has always been the one to catch
> corruption, and fsck's mount count limit has been somewhat less
> useful.  

Not all filesystem corruptions will be caught by the filesystem kernel
code.  For example, if some bits in the block allocation bitmap get
cleared, blocks in use by one file may be reallocated and reused for
another file.  Usually, this will never be noticed by the ext2 kernel

I've definitely had cases where after the mount count went over the
threshold, e2fsck has detected multiply claimed blocks.

						- Ted

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]