On 17/10/07 01:33, Phillip Susi wrote: > Onno Benschop wrote: >> My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check >> that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a >> file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a >> useful tool that needs to run regularly and every 30 mounts is pretty >> reasonable in my opinion. > > And that is where I completely disagree with you. The reason journals > were added to ext3 was to avoid the need to fsck after a dirty > unmount. If the fs does not need checked after a dirty unmount, why > does it need checked after 30 clean mounts? In practice, in my > experience, modern journaling filesystems DO maintain integrity. Also > see the plethora of servers out there running ext3 with hundreds of > days of uptime. They NEVER run fsck because they are never rebooted, > and they suffer no data loss. I am subscribed to the list, there is no need to send this to me directly.
I have personal experience where "a modern journalling file system" (ext3) does *not* maintain integrity. I have now had three cases where the journal corrupted for no particular reason, causing the kernel to remount my drive read-only. A read-only and non-destructive read-write test failed to uncover any problems. My point was, and it still stands, "theoretically a file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot". fsck is the tool that catches the difference between theory and practice. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)() ..ASCII for Onno.. |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 8888 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
