Re: stagger forced fsck on reboot
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 07:10:07PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 09:04 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > However, what I'm saying is that such an event is extremely rare on
> > ext3, since a journal replay can, IME, deal with most filesystem
> > inconsistencies. The chance of a forced fsck occurring on ext3 due to
> > inconsistencies, and a resulting synchronisation of the staggered mount
> > count is therefore negligable.
> OK, I see what you mean now. You're saying that the possibility of
> subverting the staggered count isn't an extremely serious problem since
> it's isn't all that likely to occur, not automatically anyway.
> However I'm not sure it's negligable.
> For instance a laptop owner may have had such a bad crash that s/he
> wants to manually force a full fsck on all partitions, and let the
> system continue with running its own checks automatically after that as
> normal. But doing this will synchronise the counts, bringing that
> system back to the inconvenient scenario which we've been discussing.
Yes; but then again, one could wonder whether someone who knows the
system well enough to be able to bring their system into single-user
mode, umount various file systems, fsck them, remount them (if
necessary), etc, is not knowledgeable enough with the system to also be
able to figure out how to manually set those mount counts.
In other words, I think you should either optimize for novice users or
optimize for advanced users, but not for a mixture of the two :-)
That being said, if you still disagree, there's not much that can be
said anymore. I think we both understand eachother's points, but have
different opinions -- which is not really a problem.
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4