[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/07/2014 at 06:37 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:

> seeker5528 <seeker5528@comcast.net> writes:
>> On 12/6/2014 5:58 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
>>> Well, it is not as if fscks happen out of the blue. Either you
>>> weren't paying attention and you were hit with the periodic fsck,
>>> or you make a habit of doing dirty shutdowns, and you know the
>>> fsck is going to happen anyway.
>> Assuming your partitions are set to fsck every X number of days,
>> unless you keep track of how many boots you have done, I would say
>> it is out of the blue.
> Look, if you reboot a laptop instead of suspending/hibernating it,
> sooner or later you're going to have to think "Hmm, it hasn't fscked
> for a while". It shouldn't be a surprise when it does.

Of course not.

But you may not be expecting it to happen *this* time - just that it
will happen at some point.

And you should still be able to cancel / abort it when it does happen,
and just have it happen again next time - just in case that's the best
option for the circumstances at hand.

If that results in you shooting yourself in the foot over the long term,
then that's your problem, because you made the decision to prioritize
the immediate benefit of cancelling the fsck over the long-term benefit
of letting it run.

But you should still be able to shoot yourself in the foot that way,
precisely because what is shooting yourself in the foot in one situation
can be exactly the right thing to do in another.

Linux (and *nix in general, AFAIK) has never tried to prohibit the
sysadmin from shooting him- or herself in the foot. Warn against it,
maybe, although not always even that (try 'rm -rf /' as root on a
machine you don't care about sometime; make sure you don't have any
network shares mounted!) - but prohibit or otherwise outright prevent
it, no.

> It is a small mistake, not worth bothering about,

That depends on its consequences, which in some circumstances can be
significant enough to be worth caring about.

> unless of course you persist in disclaiming your own responsibility
> and blaming your tools.


This seems almost backwards.

If you can abort the in-progress fsck, then by doing so you assume
responsibility for the consequences of doing it.

If you can't abort the in-progress fsck, then where does "your
responsibility" come into it?

   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: