[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [...] > > > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully > > > analysed/scanned by fsck. So again, people are putting faith into > > > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all > > > scenarios. > > > > Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a > > possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will > > interfere with soft updates. > > Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always > disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too.
Just a "me too" here. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "If you think C++ is not overly complicated, just what is a protected abstract virtual base pure virtual private destructor, and when was the last time you needed one?" -- Tom Cargil, C++ Journal _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
