On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > On 20141210_1830+0000, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > > >Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic > > > >fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default > > > >for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems > > > >with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" check). > > > > > > Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a > > > possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their > > > gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who > > > might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea > > > of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just > > > because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running > > > a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt > > > it in case of emergency isn't. > > > > Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Until I read the above, I had not realized that automatic fsck had > been gone for so long -- and without me noticing. I suppose it is > true, but I have no way of verifying. I know Wheezy and Jessie were > both new installs for me because I had a very poor track record of > doing successful dist-upgrades.
This paragraph constitutes data. It says that you have gone without an fsck for x years without noticing anything untoward that you can ascribe to a lack of one. It may be less detailed than a dedicated study might want but they are valid data. Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data. > Of course, there might have been some disastrous loss of data out > there somewhere on someone else's computer. And that someone might not > have realized that his data might have been saved if there had been a > automatic fsck. If he thought about it at all, he probably just > supposed that the disk failed 'between file checks', which had always > been a possibility. These are also data. It is also conjecture. It is very doubtful that 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts would see any useful conclusion formed. > So the fact that there is no record of complaints > proves nothing, one way or the other. We have no valid data, IMHO. We have no data (valid or not) about failure. We do have data relating to success; you added to it above. :) One single, well-substantiated failure would be enough to cause a conclusion drawn from the record of success to be re-examined. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014125513.2457700af...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk