TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

XFS online filesystem check and repair

50 点作者 psxuaw将近 2 年前

3 条评论

colechristensen将近 2 年前
Back in the day XFS was great and worked excellently and was quite resilient, performant, etc. etc... until it wasn&#x27;t. If it got too full or somehow corrupted beyond its capacity to recover then you were just screwed and it was very difficult to actually get your data back. Like it had a much higher threshold for being shitty and was great before you hit that threshold but after you hit it it was much worse than ext2&#x2F;3 or whatever else I was using. Something around 80% full and it started to get awful and you risked losing your entire filesystem.<p>I&#x27;d have real reservations about knowingly using it again these days because of bad experiences, though this bias is based on really old experiences which are quite possibly no longer relevant.
评论 #36676173 未加载
评论 #36676722 未加载
评论 #36675762 未加载
评论 #36676185 未加载
jeffbee将近 2 年前
I find the whole concept slightly scary. Some reasons for an online filesystem consistency check to fail are that the hardware has lied to the operating system about the success of some past operation, the filesystem has gone down a bad road and written garbage to a storage device, or the checker and the filesystem are inconsistent, with uncertainty about which side is correct. Under all those conditions I think I want my system to halt and log. Continuing seems like a real bad idea.<p>There are fault-tolerant ways of coding operating systems and filesystem but it does not seem like those ways are practiced by Linux.
hestefisk将近 2 年前
Is there any case where one would choose this over ext4 or even zfs?
评论 #36676385 未加载
评论 #36676638 未加载
评论 #36679062 未加载
评论 #36675632 未加载
评论 #36675673 未加载
评论 #36675532 未加载
评论 #36676340 未加载
评论 #36676458 未加载
评论 #36675743 未加载