Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:
> On 20141210_1830+0000, Brian wrote:
> > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, email@example.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
> Until I read the above, I had not realized that automatic fsck had
> been gone for so long -- and without me noticing. I suppose it is
> true, but I have no way of verifying. I know Wheezy and Jessie were
> both new installs for me because I had a very poor track record of
> doing successful dist-upgrades.
This paragraph constitutes data. It says that you have gone without an
fsck for x years without noticing anything untoward that you can ascribe
to a lack of one. It may be less detailed than a dedicated study might
want but they are valid data.
Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data.
> Of course, there might have been some disastrous loss of data out
> there somewhere on someone else's computer. And that someone might not
> have realized that his data might have been saved if there had been a
> automatic fsck. If he thought about it at all, he probably just
> supposed that the disk failed 'between file checks', which had always
> been a possibility.
These are also data. It is also conjecture. It is very doubtful that
10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts would see any useful conclusion
> So the fact that there is no record of complaints
> proves nothing, one way or the other. We have no valid data, IMHO.
We have no data (valid or not) about failure. We do have data relating to
success; you added to it above. :) One single, well-substantiated
failure would be enough to cause a conclusion drawn from the record of
success to be re-examined.