On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 19:00 GMT, Paul Morgan penned: > On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:42 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote: > >> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned: >>> Nick Welch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically. Easy to >>>> disable the periodic checks, though: >>>> >>>> tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/hda6 >>> >>> That's a very bad idea. As the manpage 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. >>> >> >> Wait, wait; I'm confused. I thought one of the perks of running a >> journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by >> disabling boot-time fsck? > > He didn't say he was running ext3. If he is, you're right. I tested > ext3 when I moved to it by powering down my machine when several > writes were going on. I never did break it.
Is it just ext3, or do all journalling file systems obviate the need for fsck? IIRC, ext3 is slower than the other options because it has a more complete journal ... but I may be totally wrong. Just to be a pain, I might point out that just because you never broke it during those tests, doesn't mean that such a test couldn't break it. > > To be fair, I did the same kind of testing on WinXP's NTFS, and I > didn't break that either. > -- monique -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]