Re: RFE: autofsck

["Ahmed Kamal" <email.ahmedkamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Since on similar topics we could argue forever, is it reasonable to have a poll system where devs/users would vote on such questions like should such a feature be the default or not ?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Paul Wouters wrote:

> Just to remind you, what people have a problem with is not running manual
> fsck's on certain filesystems. People have a problem with machines being stuck
> in single user mode waiting for manual intervention leading "fsck -y" anyway
> on the root filesystem.
>
> If my remote machine comes back, starts sshd, and then has /home not mounted
> because of an INCOSISTENCT FILESYSTEM error, I'm more then happy to run fsck -y
> manually.

As a bit of a tangent, if you see this fairly often, any idea why?
Journaling should in general protect you from needing any sort of fsck
after a power loss or oops; that's what they're for, right.  I'd be
curious to know what sorts of corruptions you wind up finding.

How the corruption gets coped with once found is one point worth
discussing, but where's it coming from in the first place?  My guess is
it's lack of barrier writes, but it's worth getting to the bottom of it,
and hopefully this will make the choice of e2fsck parameters less
relevant.  :)

-Eric

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list