Re: /boot partition changes when it should not
Mario 'BitKoenig' Holbe wrote:
> Clive McBarton <clivemcbarton@web.de> wrote:
>> and while the system is turned off. The "online to offline" comparison
>> works fine, whereas the "offline to online" does not always work, hence
>
> What exactly does "not always" mean?
> Maybe it's just the periodic fsck which changes the mount count?
> Check your fstab for the last field (fs_passno). Set either this to 0 to
> disable periodic checks and/or use tune2fs -c and tune2fs -i to disable
> periodic full checks (not recommended, btw.).
But, for a "read-only" mounted FS, there should be no need to run an
fsck, ever, I'd think.
Hence, in this special case, disabling the checks should be the
exception that proves the rule ;0
>
>
> regards
> Mario
This brings up the question, though, as to why these forced checks are
done in the first place. The man page talks about failed hardware and
kernel bugs, etc., but ...
The feature doesn't exist for any other filesystem I've ever used and
doesn't seem to me to make much sense, given the difference in usage
between systems used as servers versus desktop/laptop environments.
A server may stay up and running for months, perhaps longer (?), whereas
personal system may be shut down every day. So counts are quickly
reached in the personal system case, while time limits are probably not
only exceeded in the server case, they may be exceeded by substantial
amounts of time.
In the early days, when Linux was young, kernel bugs could easily be an
issue and doing frequent fsck runs may have been important.
Are things still that "bad"?
Just curious ;)
Note, I've used either xfs or jfs on laptops or workstations for some
time now, in large part to avoid the fsck, simply because it is time
consuming and got in the way. I've tended to avoid using sleep or
hibernate, due to issues with my hardware not working well, though
things are getting much better with newer software and kernels.
Which means I need to periodically run fsck manually, to be sure things
are OK, but at least it's under my control.
--
Bob McGowan
Reply to: