I appreciate the explanation, Stephen. hope I'm not belaboring... but are you saying that running fsck will detect/correct any bit on the disk if it spontaneously changes for whatever reason? does it detect/correct 2 or more bit changes? if the superblock spontaneously changes, would that be detected by the driver? it seems to me that this condition would not be found in an ext2 situation either until the 20 reboot/6 month period passes, or something funny is happening on the server. if it was a binary file, you'll probably hit it when you try to run that program. and if it's a datafile, you may have used it before 6 month period passes and the damage is done. -- Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com> To: "Thomas Bassel" <tbassel@nc.rr.com> Cc: <ext3-users@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:17 AM Subject: Re: when is fsck required? > Hi, > > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:03:16AM -0400, Thomas Bassel wrote: > > > can anyone give me an example of > > when an fsck would repair something > > that the ext3 driver would not? with > > full "data=journal" journaling, would > > fsck ever need to be run if all the > > partitions were ext3? > > Yes --- if you have hardware disk corruption, then there is nothing > you can do to guarantee data recovery, and the best you can do is to > do a full fsck to try to make things as consistent as possible. If > the hardware and software are all working perfectly, then a full fsck > should never be needed. > > Cheers, > Stephen
