[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 Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 02:46:59PM +0100, Steve Dodd quoted sct:
> > 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!

ext2/3 mark the fs as damaged if they encounter anything strange after
mounting.  Wouldn't this catch most fs corruption and force fsck as
needed, without unnecessary checking on consistent fses?  That's been
my experience, anyway -- ext2 has always been the one to catch
corruption, and fsck's mount count limit has been somewhat less
useful.  Maybe the default behavior for disk errors should be changed
to remount-ro for ext3.

-ed





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