3 ms·
For example, btrfs doesn't really do offline fsck. fsck.btrfs has a zero percent chance of destroying your volume because it does nothing. fsck.btrfs does
by aaronmdjones 2y ago
For example, btrfs doesn't really do offline fsck. fsck.btrfs has a
zero percent chance of destroying your volume because it does nothing.
fsck.btrfs does indeed do nothing, but that's not the tool they were complaining about. From the btrfs-check(8) manpage:
Warning
Do not use --repair unless you are advised to do so by a
developer or an experienced user, and then only after having
accepted that no fsck can successfully repair all types of
filesystem corruption. E.g. some other software or hardware
bugs can fatally damage a volume.
[...]
DANGEROUS OPTIONS
--repair
enable the repair mode and attempt to fix problems where possible
Note there’s a warning and 10 second delay when this option is
run without --force to give users a chance to think twice
before running repair, the warnings in documentation have
shown to be insufficient
- jchw 2y agoYes, but that doesn't do the job that a fsck implementation does. fsck is something you stuff into your initrd to do some quick checks/repairs prior to mounting, but btrfs intentionally doesn't need those. If you need btrfs-check, you have probably hit either a catastrophic bug or hardware failure. This is not the same as fsck for some other filesystems. However, ZFS is designed the same way and also has no fsck utility. So whatever point was intended to be made was not, in any case.