On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 02:48:58PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Curt Howland wrote:
> > My personal experience with ext2 was that the occasional power failure
> > or accidental hitting of the switch caused just too many problems. I
> > still let the fsck happen every 30 mounts or so, I don't turn that
> > off.
>
> With my uptimes that's about once every 10 years. :/
Forcing a fsck after a nominated number of boots always did seem like
a bit of a flawed concept to me, unless there is an assumption that an
orderly shutdown is more likely to cause corruptions that continuous
uptime.
It is especially annoying if I am travelling and had shutdown to conserve
battery life, and then end up having the batter flattened by a flurry
of filesystem checks when I start back up..
I think I would prefer the decision to be based on time elapsed since
the last check - perhaps with a nag message so that I have the option
to defer till next time if I am short of time or battery power.
Of course that still only helps if you do reboot occasionally.
I do try to keep as many of my filesystems as possible mounted read-only
(ideally everything but /var and /home) so I suppose I could have cron
run a regular fsck.
Regards,
DigbyT
P.S. to include something relevent to the original thread, I have
use both Reiserfs and Ext3, and have never found enough performance
or reliability difference to worry about - so for me the main
advantges of each are:
ext3 - more complere set of tools, such as dump/restore
reiserfs - no 'unrequested' files (lost+found) created by the
fs creation process. Not a bid deal, but it looks untidy
to me to have this extra file in /, /home, /usr etc...
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin digbyt(at)digbyt.com
http://www.digbyt.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
