regular fsck runs are too disturbing

Waldemar Kornewald wkornew at
Thu Sep 27 21:37:46 UTC 2007

On 9/27/07, Phillip Susi <psusi at> wrote:
> The point though, is still valid; reiserfs doesn't bother forcing a disk
> check every n mounts, so why does ext3 still do this?  I think these
> days the kernel is bug free enough and hardware is generally reliable
> enough that we can drop the forced fsck by default.

I just know that on Windows I never had this automatic FS check
(except after a crash) and neither did my friends and none of us ever
experienced data loss with NTFS. Seriously, how likely is FS
corruption on a system that didn't have a crash in one year and got
used daily? Can anybody provide real statistics?

Of course, it would be ideal to have automatic checks in the
background while the system is idle, but if no developer wants to
implement it I'd rather have fsck disabled, by default, too.

Why did the Ubuntu developers choose that particular behavior (fsck
every 21st or 30th boot), anyway? IMHO, a much more accurate
measurement would be: how much time has the FS spent in the "mounted"
state since the last FS check?

Waldemar Kornewald

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list