regular fsck runs are too disturbing - why not "badblocks"?

Alex Jones alex at weej.com
Thu Sep 27 11:42:26 BST 2007


I'd just like to point out that it seems to take 40 minutes to scan a
500 GB volume!

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:05 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:

> 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?
> 
> Vincenzo
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20070927/353366ff/attachment.htm 


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list