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

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.debian@googlemail.com wrote:

> On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> >Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
> >fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default
> >for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems
> >with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" check).
> Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a
> possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their
> gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who
> might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea
> of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just
> because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running
> a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt
> it in case of emergency isn't.

Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For
the vast majority of users this passed unnoticed and for at least two
years most new users have never seen an enforced fsck at boot. During
the same amount of time there has not been a single report of any
adverse effect due to this default; no one has suffered and no file
systems have been harmed.

I think we can conclude it is a safe default. The user need do nothing
but use her machine and be happy in not knowing a single thing about an
fsck. A ^C to stop an fsck would have no significance for her and the
other 90%+ of Debian users. Knowledgeable users could follow in the
their footsteps and not lose out.

Administrators of machines do have to know about an fsck and I imagine
they would see it as duty to carry one out from time to time. I also
imagine they do not like unannounced fscks coming at unexpected times
and do not see the default for enable_periodic_fsck as a disadvanatge. A
^C wouldn't make sense to them. Knowledgeable users could follow in the
their footsteps and not lose out.

Reply to: