With the battery issue. Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when on battery? I personally thought the entire point of journalled file-systems was to not have to do this kind of check. In fact getting rid of this kind of thing was one of the great features of NTFS over FAT (on windows). On moving to Linux, I felt like I had taken a step backwards in that aspect of file-systems. Thanks, Bryan Quigley
On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Jonathan Musther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to > skip it, or better yet they would be prompted. > > I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and > then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately > switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's > laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat. In that particular > case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a > powered up hard drive. The latest version now contains a timeout, if no > selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without > running the check. There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. > > The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter > whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they > certainly want to use it now. When most people shut down, they don't care > as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style > prompt, they can postpone it if they need to. > > Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot > times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same > time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized > disks). > > > > > On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > > > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > > > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. > > > > > > I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think > > about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how > > good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? > > Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I > > don't want to be late because of a fsck. > > > > Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more > > important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Aurelien Naldi > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) > http://www.slingshot-game.org > > -- > 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 > >
-- 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
