On 08/12/14 01:29, The Wanderer wrote:
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.
My experience of running Linux on my personal local interactive (rather than server) systems over the past eighteen years leads me to believe that the long-term benefit of *prophylactic* fsck invocations triggered by mount-count or interval-since-check is approximately zero, since *those* invocations of fsck have never discovered FS corruption on my systems.
I mean, sure, I've *had* filesystem corruption on my personal local interactive Linux systems - but it was always in a scenario of "hardware failure" or "unclean shutdown".
Other people's experience may, of course, be different.