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

Re: RFE: autofsck

I totally agree we should fix the core cause. If there's anything to prevent file system errors from ever happening, go for it. However, when the inevitable
Filesystem errors, Fix(y/n):
appears, when was the last time you pressed "n"! Unless you're Theodore tso there's not so much you could do, eh! So why not make that the default

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen redhat com> wrote:
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> I would like to propose
> echo AUTOFSCK_DEF_CHECK=yes >> /etc/sysconfig/autofsck
> echo 'AUTOFSCK_OPT="-y"' >> /etc/sysconfig/autofsck
> Working with a local ISP in some rural area where there's a lot of power
> cuts! The ISP guys were asking like, "Why is it that Linux boxes need
> manual intervention to get back up after a power cut!" .. "Can't you
> script what you're doing to get it back up" ?!
> Does not having this as the default makes sense in some tangible number
> of cases ?!

Adding -y could potentially be dangerous.  e2fsck asks when the answer
isn't obvious.  In some situations, perhaps, but I probably would not
make this default.

I'm more concerned that you're seeing so many problems; with a
journaling filesystem you really shouldn't have any filesystem metadata
integrity problems on power loss; that is, if you have barriers on
(which ext3 doesn't by default) and if your storage can pass barriers
(which lvm doesn't), or if you have drive write cache disabled (which
hurts performance pretty badly).

I'd rather address the root of the problem and sort out why, if you are
paying the journaling overhead penalty at runtime, it's not saving you
on power loss.


fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com

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