regular fsck runs are too disturbing

Luke Yelavich themuso at
Sun Sep 30 23:02:36 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 08:08:05AM EST, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please
> don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default.
> As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck
> and that's incredibly annoying.
> >From my own experience, the average person will react very negatively
> to fsck increasing their boot time by 10-40min, especially if XP&Vista
> (how about other Linux distros or OS X?) don't do this annoying check.

So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their filesystem 
regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due to system activity 
etc, and they loose their data? I'd be thinking that having the filesystem periodically checked 
would be a good thing, to ensure my data stays in tact.

> Seriously, why should we accept being disturbed by fsck?

To keep our data in tact.
- -- 
Luke Yelavich
GPG key: 0xD06320CE 
Email & MSN: themuso at
Jabber: themuso at
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list