regular fsck runs are too disturbing

Onno Benschop onno at
Tue Oct 16 23:45:16 UTC 2007

On 17/10/07 01:33, Phillip Susi wrote:
> 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.
I am subscribed to the list, there is no need to send this to me directly.

I have personal experience where "a modern journalling file system"
(ext3) does *not* maintain integrity. I have now had three cases where
the journal corrupted for no particular reason, causing the kernel to
remount my drive read-only. A read-only and non-destructive read-write
test failed to uncover any problems.

My point was, and it still stands, "theoretically a file-system
maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot".

fsck is the tool that catches the difference between theory and practice.

Onno Benschop

Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA)
()/)/)()        ..ASCII for Onno..
|>>?            ..EBCDIC for Onno..
--- -. -. ---   ..Morse for Onno..

ITmaze   -   ABN: 56 178 057 063   -  ph: 04 1219 8888   -   onno at

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list