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

Re: forced fsck (again?)



On Jan 23, 2008  09:08 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> I thought of that, but given that you need to configure the e-mail to
> send reports, and the snapshot size, we need another configuration
> file anyway.  (We could sneek some of that information into the
> options field of fstab, since the kernel and other programs that parse
> that field just take what they need and ignore the rest, but.... ick,
> ick, ick.  :-)

I agree - adding email to fstab is icky and I wouldn't go there.  I don't
see a problem with just emailing it to "root@" by default and giving the
user the option to change it to something else.

> Also, I could imagine that a user might not want to check all of the
> filesystems in fstab.

Similarly, a config file which disables checking on some LV if specified
seems reasonable.  IMHO the main goal is to make things transparent to
the user and avoid their annoyance of "e2fsck at boot".  Since the e2fsck
is on a read-only LV snapshot, there shouldn't be any danger to the
filesystems.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.


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