On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 14:20 -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > 3. Fsck should be needed only for un-mountable filesystems. Ideally, > we > should be handling things like Windows does. Preform slightly > better > checking when reading data, and if we see an error, flag the > filesystem > for expensive repair on the next mount.
That philosophy also has some drawbacks: - The user doesn't directly that anything went wrong. Thus errors may even continue to accumulate and getting much worse if the fs would have immediately gone ro and giving the user the chance to manually intervene (possibly then with help from upstream). - Any smart auto-magical™ repair may also just fail (and make things worse, as the current --repair e.g. may). Not performing such auto- repair, gives the user at least the possible chance to make a bitwise copy of the whole fs, before trying any rescue operations. This wouldn't be the case, if the user never noticed that something happen, and the fs tries to repair things right at mounting. So I think any such auto-repair should be used with extreme caution and only in those cases where one is absolutely a 100% sure that the action will help and just do good. Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
