On 2020-06-11 23:47, Dirk Coetzee wrote: > I always thought that 'sync' mount option is enough to avoid corruption of the FS.
> Am I just "fooling" myself ? > I guess it boils down to a matter of preference and business requirements. > > "slow writes" vs "no writes". It's a good point, perhaps? Comments anyone? I think many went the RO route to avoid fsck and add an extra layer of security. Now that there is KARL and ffs2 means fsck is faster. The argument for RO being more of a problem than anything else, has gotten stronger, whilst ironically there seems to be more frequent reports of people using RO. Batteries/UPS are certainly still, the best answer. Database corruption for example. I also wonder how sync might affect disk churn during KARL. I'm not sure I care at all, about a one-off at boot though. Is there any mileage for root to be mounted sync in any case with so few writes, but maybe a problem for bsd.rd and live upgrades may want to re-mount? Though perhaps safety is more important, in any case?
