Re: making bootup fsck more user-friendly
>> Unfortunately, experimenting with other filesystems will have to wait
>> until I have a spare drive. I don't know of a way to convert to other
>> filesystems on the fly :-) Also, the need to defer fsck seems like a
>> poor reason to go through the trouble of switching my home PC's
>> filesystem :-)
> There are several hard-disk HOWTOs in the doc-linux-howto packages (pick
> your format). Its not that hard if you have a spare partition or just
> good backups. Its especially easy if you're using LVM. Without LVM I
> admit it can be a bit of a shell-game but it only takes a few minutes
> once you map it out.
I don't like to use LVM unless there is a compelling reason. It adds
additional complexity to managing your filesystems. Also there is
greater risk of problems when you use it (eg: 1 drive starts having
problems, so your entire lvm becomes unusable until you fix the
The only time I've used LVM was on work servers where they originally
had 1 mount per drive, so the network shares needed to be
moved/trimmed/etc around whenever one of the partitions filled up.
I'm sure if you use LVM a lot, then it becomes second nature, and you
end up using it everywhere due to the extra flexibility you get
(analogy: using git instead of a centralized SCM tool). But for noobs
who barely know how to work with it (me), it's easier to just use the
default filesystem :-) Beats having to refer to the manual each time
you need to fix/check something that I already know how to do without
> I would call my home computer extremely critical. I don't want some
> bug corrupting /usr or /var and making it so that I can't boot to fix
> it. With / separate and small, the chances of it getting corrupted are
> rather small.
How real a problem is this? I've never had data loss problems with
ext3. Are there benchmarks/anecdotal evidence which show how much more
reliable a separate root partition is?
I would have thought that you'd only separate root part off would be:
- You like to use LVM a lot
- You have a traditional unix-like filesystem setup, with a lot of
root dirs on separate partitions/nfs shares
- You use unstable filesystems
In the rare event that root part does have a serious error (maybe
- ext3 (and ext2?) does make backup copies of the superblock.
- For all but the most serious problems you should be able to recover
by booting from another medium (cd,other hdd, etc) and running
- Hopefully you do have good backups in the event that something
catastrophic happens to the harddrive (if it does, your other
partitions will probably be killed at the same time).