Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/)
-   -   faster fsck ? (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/445562-faster-fsck.html)

10-29-2010 09:42 AM

faster fsck ?
 
Hi,

we have CentOS ftp server (vsftpd) which has a lot of users who are writing and reading
a lot of small files from/into its own accounts (and other servers - using samba client - are
reading these files and putting them into outside database).
Since this server is under heavy load its availability is important.
>From time to time we "crash" this server (don't ask why ...) but then fsck is running for over 20-30 minuts.
The question is: is there any other _stable_ filesystem (xfs ?, jfs ?) which we can use instead of ext3
which is (quite) immune to crashes and whose fsck is "faster" (by design) then in ext3 ?

Regards
Przemek


----------------------------------------------
Chcesz wiÄ?cej zarabiaÄ?? ZmieĹ? pracÄ? na lepszÄ?!
http://linkint.pl/f2822

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Peter Kjellstrm 10-29-2010 12:31 PM

faster fsck ?
 
On Friday 29 October 2010 11:42:38 przemolicc@poczta.fm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have CentOS ftp server (vsftpd) which has a lot of users who are writing
> and reading a lot of small files from/into its own accounts (and other
> servers - using samba client - are reading these files and putting them
> into outside database).
> Since this server is under heavy load its availability is important.
>
> >From time to time we "crash" this server (don't ask why ...) but then fsck
> >is running for over 20-30 minuts.
>
> The question is: is there any other _stable_ filesystem (xfs ?, jfs ?)
> which we can use instead of ext3 which is (quite) immune to crashes and
> whose fsck is "faster" (by design) then in ext3 ?

The idea with ext3/ext4 is that you don't have to run a full fsck after a
system crash (only a fully automated journal replay).

XFS uses the same idea (no fsck only journal replay). But if you really want
to fsck an xfs filesystem then that too will take a lot of time.

/Peter
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Les Mikesell 10-29-2010 12:47 PM

faster fsck ?
 
On 10/29/10 7:31 AM, Peter Kjellstrm wrote:
> On Friday 29 October 2010 11:42:38 przemolicc@poczta.fm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we have CentOS ftp server (vsftpd) which has a lot of users who are writing
>> and reading a lot of small files from/into its own accounts (and other
>> servers - using samba client - are reading these files and putting them
>> into outside database).
>> Since this server is under heavy load its availability is important.
>>
>> > From time to time we "crash" this server (don't ask why ...) but then fsck
>>> is running for over 20-30 minuts.
>>
>> The question is: is there any other _stable_ filesystem (xfs ?, jfs ?)
>> which we can use instead of ext3 which is (quite) immune to crashes and
>> whose fsck is "faster" (by design) then in ext3 ?
>
> The idea with ext3/ext4 is that you don't have to run a full fsck after a
> system crash (only a fully automated journal replay).
>
> XFS uses the same idea (no fsck only journal replay). But if you really want
> to fsck an xfs filesystem then that too will take a lot of time.

The question is, are the fsck's happening because the journal is corrupted,
because something is wrong with it, or because a journal isn't configured or the
'time to check' has expired. In the latter case you can adjust with tune2fs.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.