Ahmed Kamal wrote: > I would like to propose > > echo AUTOFSCK_DEF_CHECK=yes >> /etc/sysconfig/autofsck > echo 'AUTOFSCK_OPT="-y"' >> /etc/sysconfig/autofsck > > Working with a local ISP in some rural area where there's a lot of power > cuts! The ISP guys were asking like, "Why is it that Linux boxes need > manual intervention to get back up after a power cut!" .. "Can't you > script what you're doing to get it back up" ?! > Does not having this as the default makes sense in some tangible number > of cases ?! > Adding -y could potentially be dangerous. e2fsck asks when the answer isn't obvious. In some situations, perhaps, but I probably would not make this default. I'm more concerned that you're seeing so many problems; with a journaling filesystem you really shouldn't have any filesystem metadata integrity problems on power loss; that is, if you have barriers on (which ext3 doesn't by default) and if your storage can pass barriers (which lvm doesn't), or if you have drive write cache disabled (which hurts performance pretty badly). I'd rather address the root of the problem and sort out why, if you are paying the journaling overhead penalty at runtime, it's not saving you on power loss. -Eric -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
