regular fsck runs are too disturbing - why not "badblocks"?
ciancia at di.unipi.it
Thu Sep 27 09:05:55 UTC 2007
On 27/09/2007 Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > What about my alternative suggestion? It would still run fsck, but at
> > > the same time be less annoying or not disturbing at all.
> not wsure if you ever ran fsck manually, but you have to unmount the
> partition you check or at least mount it readonly ...
> so no matter how far you will background it you wont be able to work
> while it runs ...
If the point of running that (annoying, indeed) fsck is to check for
disk defect, why not running "badblocks" instead? It can do a read-only
check on a mounted filesystem. You could modify that so that it runs
only when other processes are not accessing the disk. In any case,
having a journaled filesystem by default and blocking users while they
might be in a hurry is not pleasant. At least leave the possibility of
interrupting the check. Suppose you are at a conference, and it starts
checking your disk, and you start your talk late for that reason. What
will other people think about ubuntu? Is this good publicity?
More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss