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

Re: when is fsck required?



I appreciate the explanation, Stephen.

hope I'm not belaboring... but
are you saying that running fsck will 
detect/correct any bit on the disk if it
spontaneously changes for whatever reason?
does it detect/correct 2 or more bit changes?
if the superblock spontaneously changes, would
that be detected by the driver?

it seems to me that this condition would not
be found in an ext2 situation either until the
20 reboot/6 month period passes, or something
funny is happening on the server.  if it was
a binary file, you'll probably hit it when you
try to run that program.  and if it's a datafile,
you may have used it before 6 month period
passes and the damage is done.

-- Tom
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct redhat com>
To: "Thomas Bassel" <tbassel nc rr com>
Cc: <ext3-users redhat com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: when is fsck required?


> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:03:16AM -0400, Thomas Bassel wrote:
>  
> > can anyone give me an example of
> > when an fsck would repair something
> > that the ext3 driver would not?  with
> > full "data=journal" journaling, would
> > fsck ever need to be run if all the
> > partitions were ext3?
> 
> Yes --- if you have hardware disk corruption, then there is nothing
> you can do to guarantee data recovery, and the best you can do is to
> do a full fsck to try to make things as consistent as possible.  If
> the hardware and software are all working perfectly, then a full fsck
> should never be needed.
> 
> Cheers,
>  Stephen





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