On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:14:02AM +0100, Thomas Koeller wrote:
> You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling
> mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables,
> memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without
> marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using journaling
> on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be marked dirty,
> so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem error detected by
> the kernel will still force an fsck on the next reboot, but it may
> already be too late to prevent data loss at that point.
>
> If I do not get this wrong, it means that no checks will be performed
> just because the maximum mount count has been exceeded, if jounaling
> is in effect. So this contradicts your explanation, or doesn't it?
Err... read more carefully. The key is in the first sentence:
> YOU SHOULD STRONGLY CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES OF DISABLING
> MOUNT-COUNT-DEPENDENT CHECKING ENTIRELY. Bad disk drives, cables,
This is warning about the consequences if you set max-mount-counts to
zero:
If max-mount-counts is 0 then the number of times the filesystem
is mounted will be disregarded by e2fsck(8) and the kernel.
- Ted
_______________________________________________
Ext3-users@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
