regular fsck runs are too disturbing
psusi at cfl.rr.com
Tue Oct 16 17:33:44 UTC 2007
Onno Benschop wrote:
> My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check
> that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a
> file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a
> useful tool that needs to run regularly and every 30 mounts is pretty
> reasonable in my opinion.
And that is where I completely disagree with you. The reason journals
were added to ext3 was to avoid the need to fsck after a dirty unmount.
If the fs does not need checked after a dirty unmount, why does it
need checked after 30 clean mounts? In practice, in my experience,
modern journaling filesystems DO maintain integrity. Also see the
plethora of servers out there running ext3 with hundreds of days of
uptime. They NEVER run fsck because they are never rebooted, and they
suffer no data loss.
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss