On 12/12/2014 6:47 PM, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > >> On 20141211_1332+0000, Brian wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation, >> and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no* >> data. > > You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some > more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ), > > tune2fs(8) says > > You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling > mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, > memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without > marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using > journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be > marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem > error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the > next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss > at that point. > > Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is > optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss. > > The changelog for e2fsprogs has > > Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace > extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file > system checks disabled. > > This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what it > strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in e2fsprogs > is that time- and mount count-based checks are not particularly useful. > > > http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf > > If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new > Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course > anyway and their number will grow in the coming years. > > Are they any the worse off because these checks are not being made? > Has upstream got it wrong? Should some sections of the documentation > be rewritten? Or can default program behaviour and documentation be > reconciled? > >
I guess this is something Windows does better than Linux. Windows never does a checkdsk except after a hard crash - and not always then. Jerry -- 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/548b9a27.3070...@gmail.com
