Bug 862871
| Summary: | btrfs /etc/fstab entry, dump and fsck don't apply | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Chris Murphy <bugzilla> |
| Component: | python-blivet | Assignee: | Brian Lane <bcl> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 20 | CC: | amulhern, anaconda-maint-list, awilliam, bcl, bugzilla, dlehman, gczarcinski, g.kaviyarasu, jonathan, vanmeeuwen+fedora |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | AcceptedFreezeException | ||
| Fixed In Version: | python-blivet-0.23.7-1 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-12-03 03:45:12 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 980657 | ||
|
Description
Chris Murphy
2012-10-03 19:35:33 UTC
*** Bug 888747 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#What.27s_the_difference_between_btrfsck_and_fsck.btrfs "This is not needed for btrfs. You should set fs_passno to 0." This is more of a question than a suggestion: Should "noatime" be added as a standard option for btrfs subvolumes in /etc/fstab? This is not going to be fixed in F18 so rawhide it is. noatime can cause less obvious problems that are more difficult to troubleshoot than the edge cases of nasty performance with relatime. I think upstream btrfs devs need to decide the default mount options, rather than a distro second guessing them, short of clear problems. This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle. Changing version to '19'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19 This is still a bug in Fedora 20. Bug 1034563 is in part caused by this bug. What's needed to get this fixed? Is anaconda presently unable to set different fs_passno on a file system basis? At least btrfs and xfs have no such thing as an unattended fsck. Proposed as a Freeze Exception for 20-final by Fedora user chrismurphy using the blocker tracking app because: It would be nice for /etc/fstab to have the correct values to prevent fsck from being autorun on at least Btrfs (if not also XFS), as this file can persist for many Fedora updates once written. And it causes at least one other bug, bug 1034563. blivet needs to also check for format.fsckProg when setting passno in fstab() > 0 Discussed at 2013-11-27 freeze exception review meeting: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2013-11-27/f20-blocker-review-3.2013-11-27-17.01.log.txt . Accepted as a freeze exception issue: it's a bit late to be fiddling with this, but it's clearly incorrect as it stands, and the fix sounds like it would be fairly safe and limited. We'd prefer if this goes in some time before the last moment, though :) https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-21928/pykickstart-1.99.48-1.fc20,python-blivet-0.23.7-1.fc20,anaconda-20.25.12-1.fc20 went stable, so this can probably be closed; does someone want to verify it? Verified. fs_passno and fs_freq for btrfs filesystems are 0. awesome, let's shut it down. thanks cmurf. |