On Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:31:29 AM -0700 Hans Reiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chris Mason wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, May 19, 2001 06:40:48 PM +0200 Dirk Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sam, 19 Mai 2001, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> >
>> >> fsck should never be run automatically. That sysadmin might have a
>> >> company waiting for the server to come up.
>> >
>> > Then they should have a sysadmin that knows how to disable it.
>> >
>> > This is not a policy, its just a reasonable default. I don't like much
>> > that reiserfs does not integrate into the "standard" "fdisk after a
>> > while" sheme the usual file systems do.
>> >
>>
>> There are two sides of this. fsck is only now getting strong enough
>> that I would start to recommend that kind of thing. As fsck matures, we
>> should at least have the option of ext2 style automatic runs after X
>> number of mounts/crashes.
>>
>> -chris
> No, this is an absolutely hideous feature of ext2, if you want to have it
> print a reminder to the user that they have not run fsck recently, fine,
> but in the eyes of a suser trying to get their laptop to turn on for
> their presentation, or their server to not leave the whole company
> hanging, this "feature" of ext2 fsck is a bug.
No. There are many, many different kinds of users. The home user, where
fsck should only take a few minutes, should have an (readonly) fsck every
once and a while to make sure the FS is correct, especially since these
users tend to not have backups.
It is a very good feature, that not everyone needs. Huge installations
don't want periodic fscks, but huge installations are the exception, not
the rule.
-chris
