Hi, 11.01.2015 15:04, Chris Murphy:
That's all I meant by bouncing back to ext devs. I don't mean there's anything wrong with ext4. It's pretty clear the XFS and Btrfs devs expect that if a normal rw mount fails, that boot fails and we're dropped to a dracut shell with an unmounted root. And hopefully our fs repair tool is in the initramfs so we can run it on the unmounted root. Is that good enough for ext4 also? Or do they still really want e2fsck run every boot?
ext4 is perfectly able to run for years (with moderate everyday load) without a single full fsck, I can assure. It is basically a really zero-maintenance filesystem (if treated properly).
Thank you, Nikolai
It just seems there's a more elegant way to do this. Wasn't there some big blow up recently, where some people were mad they couldn't cancel these lengthy e2fsck's on ext4 volumes? Seems like a bad idea to cancel an in-progress fsck anyway, but it had been scheduled 180 days prior as the mkfs default. There was already tacit permission to do this full fsck. However, a vastly better UX would be to communicate the need to do this differently, like a notification that says "a full fsck is recommended on the next boot, set this now?"
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
