On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Peter Simmonds <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On that note, is there a better alternative? Big hard disks are here to > stay. > Good question. fsck is a basically an offline tool that discovers where the live, running filesystem itself has made mistakes. If you use a 'better' filesystem that acts more defensively to avoid errors, and does more of the consistency checks while the filesystem is in use, you reduce the need for an external check. So basically, the more modern the filesystem you use, the less likely it is that you will ever need to use an fsck tool. For example, ext4 has a faster fsck - https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Howto#Fast_fsck Here's a description of btrfs, and why an fsck operation is not needed as much - http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-19_Btrfs-Tips_-Btrfs-Scrub-and-Btrfs-Filesystem-Repair.html zfs doesn't even have an fsck tool - http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/6n7ht6r6p/index.html So the answer to "fsck is slow on big disks" isn't "make a faster fsck", it's "don't use small-disk filesystems on big disks" :-) -jim
_______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.canterbury.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
