Hi, On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:16:42PM +0200, Bernd Schubert wrote: > On Friday 04 June 2010, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > Hi Takatoshi-san, > > > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:19:42PM +0900, Takatoshi MATSUO wrote: > > > Hello > > > > > > I suggest to add a parameter which decides executing fsck > > > as user's policy in Filesystem RA. > > > > > > Because, current RA dose not check ext3 because executing fsck depends on > > > filesystem. > > > But ext3 sometimes is broken and remounted read-only although it has > > > journal, so > > > > Under which circumstances does this happen? > > No filesystem is perfect ;) And any kind of hardware issue can cause > filesystem and data corruption.
Filesystem corruption? That's like not what I exactly had in mind :) I'm not sure if fsck would help in that case anyway. Not saying that that never happens (hw or bugs), but what I meant is "normal" (say, on stonith) failovers where no fs corruption occurs. > Takatoshi-san, you should notice however, that for example e2fsck will start > to run in non-auto mode, even if only a journal recovery is required. With > default extX paramters, it then easily might perform a complete filesystem > check, which might last hours. Not only that you might get unexpected long > down time, you also need to be aware, that fsck time is often MUCH longer > than > the resource start timeout. If that happens, pacemaker will kill fsck in the > middle of a run, which might damage your filesystem even more. > > That is all fine if you know about possible consequences, but I really doubt > that most admins are aware of that. Most admins are not aware of most things ;-) > > > I want to decide myself executing fsck before mount to operate more > > > safely. > > > > > > This new parameter has three mode "auto","force" and "no". > > > Default is "auto" which do the same thing as before. > > > "force" and "no" mean what they say. > > > > Patch applied. Many thanks! > > That brings up and idea here, with extX, we could easily use > > dumpe2fs -h | grep "Filesystem state:" > > to check if fsck needs to be run. So the agent could refuse to mount the > decide and make you run it manually in the foreground without any timeouts... > I will implement that for our lustre_server agent (a heavily modified > Filesystem agent) and then possibly back-port the patch. That may be a good idea. Given that one can say how long would e2fsck take. Cheers, Dejan > Cheers, > Bernd > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
