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

Re: fsck journal replay times (was Re: Is this list active?)



On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 10:32:06PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 09:37:42PM +0100, Steve Dodd wrote:

> > No, I don't see why they should be. AIUI (and I think someone explained here
> > recently), the forced-fscks are only there to catch hardware problems,
> > results of software bugs, etc. ext3 isn't any more resilient to this than
> > ext2, is it? 
> 
> Correct.  On the other hand, people have an expectation that ext3
> doesn't need fsck, so for those needing fast reboots for server
> availability, e2fsck's default behaviour will be unexpected.
> 
> As a developer, I certainly prefer to see the forced fscks as that
> results in any problems being found sooner, but users may have
> different priorities!

This sounds like something that should be handled by the distribution's
config / admin tools; however, I'm wondering whether storing the check
intervals in the filesystem itself makes this more difficult. If the drive
that your /var is on explodes, for example, and you create a new filesystem
on a new drive, you probably want the same check policy as before. If there
was a config file that allowed you to set both default and per-filesystem
check policy, the distribution's tools could decide what was best and
generate the file accordingly.

-- 
PGP signed or encrypted mail preferred, key ID 0x68383A73  *  Please *do* Cc:
me on mailing list replies  *  http://www.loth.demon.co.uk/people/steved/





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