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

Is btrfsck really required?



After playing around with btrfs for a while, reading about it and also watching Avi Miller's presentation on youtube I am starting to wonder why one would need btrfsck at all. I am no expert in filesystems so I apologize if any of these questions may sound a bit stupid.

1. How "self-healing" is btrfs really?! According to Miller's talk btrfs is making a (circular?) backup of the root tree every 30 seconds. If I remember correctly the root tree is also mirrored several places on disk and on rotational media all those are updated in tandem. This is leading me to believe that there should be no problem in recovering from a corruption.

2. Also in addition to question 1. Is there some sanity checking when writing the root tree? e.g. if you write garbage to the root tree by accident will there be some recovery mechanism there to protect you as well?

3. What is the point with the mount -o recovery ? If there already is a corruption there is there any reason btrfs should not recover automatically by itself?

4. If a disk responds slowly, Will btrfs throw it out of a raid configuration and if so will a btrfsck be less strict about timeouts and will it automatically rebalance the data from the bad disk over to other good disks?!

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Photo]     [Yosemite News]    [Yosemite Photos]    [Free Online Dating]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

Add to Google Powered by Linux