Ian Smith wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote: > > Ian Smith wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote: > > > > If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does > > > > background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only? > > > > > > Well I was referring to foreground fsck, and I still don't know why > > > running it on a mounted fs is 'bad' when fsck runs in 'NO WRITE' mode > > > anyway when it finds a fs is mounted, hence my query above. > > > > Here's my understanding: > > > > Mounted fs (rw) isn't in stable state, there may be some writes to it - > > daemons, buffers flushes, etc. In this condition fsck can report > > inconsistency. And fsck running in 'NO WRITE' won't help anyway :) > > a) Absolutely. > > b) Indeed it usually does, fairly consistently, especially on /var. > > c) No it won't help (except where it can help locate problems in a real > mess like bad blocks), but the assertion in question was, can it hurt?
Ah sorry, I missed that. With 'NO WRITE' one can suppose it shouldn't hurt anything except performance ;) I made a quick scan through the source and it looks like it won't: - in src/sbin/fsck_ffs/setup.c if fs is mounted rw fswritefd is set to -1 - in src/sbin/fsck_ffs/fsutil.c blwrite(), flush() and ckfini() won't write anything if fswritefd<0 Unless, of course, I'm missing something. Cheers, Karol -- Karol Kwiatkowski <karol.kwiat at gmail dot com> OpenPGP 0x06E09309
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
