Re: unchecked 31 times

["Monique Y. Herman" <spam@bounceswoosh.org>]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 19:00 GMT, Paul Morgan penned:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:17:42 -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 at 16:55 GMT, Alan Shutko penned:
>>> Nick Welch <mack@incise.org> writes:
>>> 
>>>> I suppose mke2fs(8) is where that comes from specifically.  Easy to
>>>> disable the periodic checks, though:
>>>>
>>>> tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 /dev/hda6
>>> 
>>> That's a very bad idea.  As the manpage says:
>>> 
>>>     You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling
>>>     mount-count-dependent checking entirely.  Bad disk drives,
>>>     cables, memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem
>>>     without marking the filesystem dirty or in error.  If you are
>>>     using journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never
>>>     be marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked.  A
>>>     filesystem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck
>>>     on the next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent
>>>     data loss at that point.
>>> 
>> 
>> Wait, wait; I'm confused.  I thought one of the perks of running a
>> journalling file system was that you can speed up the boot process by
>> disabling boot-time fsck?
> 
> He didn't say he was running ext3.  If he is, you're right.  I tested
> ext3 when I moved to it by powering down my machine when several
> writes were going on.  I never did break it.

Is it just ext3, or do all journalling file systems obviate the need for
fsck?  IIRC, ext3 is slower than the other options because it has a more
complete journal ... but I may be totally wrong.

Just to be a pain, I might point out that just because you never broke
it during those tests, doesn't mean that such a test couldn't break it.

> 
> To be fair, I did the same kind of testing on WinXP's NTFS, and I
> didn't break that either.
> 


-- 
monique