On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:55:11 -0600
Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com> wrote:
> > Erasing error output just doesn't erase the cause,
> > and the cause might be very dangerous to the system's
> > health…
>
> Erasing the error output? Why are you erasing error output? I
> never suggested any such thing.
So you're following attentively the output of the automatic
fsck, excellent…
> > This also means more frequent FS checks ("I'm waiting
> > for hours fsck to complete" IS NOT a good excuse).
>
> Huh? What? Huh? What are you talking about? I suggested setting
> FSCKFIX=yes and that most certainly has nothing to do with long
> fsck check times nor with more frequent checks. Why did you
> suggest that?
Because some FS errors have an incremental pattern; thus,
more frequent fsck gives the user a much better chance to
act before complete brakdown.
> > Now, if you think your way's the best, keep on going to the
> > bottom of it, and just replace fsck with an empty script that
> > always returns 1.
>
> That is a classic "straw man" fallacy.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
In the facts, your way is almost the same as avoiding completely
a fsck (the first reason I gave).
> Somehow you have mutated my suggestion of fixing the problem with
> ignoring the problem. Ignoring is very, very bad. Why would you
> even suggest ignoring the problem? I know I didn't suggest
> ignoring the problem.
But this is what you (1/2) make!
And don't tell me you're scrutinizing very carefully something
(the fsck output) you're very used to see, nobody does (nor can).
This is the bottom of the problem: the same as when you find
the dirty linen in your way in the stairs, you're careful once,
then you integrate it… until you're wife bawls you out for
doing so. Except that in this scenario, the HD's full failure
have 90% chances to be the result.
Hence my proposition to get rid of fsck: you'll save time, never
your HDz.
--
Dog Proverb: If you can't eat it, if you can't fuck it, piss on it!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature