2009/1/4 Martin MOKREJŠ <mmokrejs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Duane Griffin wrote: >> 2009/1/3 Martin MOKREJŠ <mmokrejs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Why does not "mount -ro" die when it would have to replay the journal >>> with a message that user must run fsck.ext3 in order to be able to mount >>> it albeit read-only? Still I would prefer having an extra switch to >>> force mount RO while not touching the journal for disk forensics. >>> I think that would also prevent the cases when a LiveCD/rescue distribution >>> would not mount+replay it automagically but user would really have to >>> provide the switch to the command. I am really not using the recovery >>> boot cd to touch my partitions in some cases unwillingly. >> >> Well, that would make things rather tricky. As in, shutting down >> uncleanly would render your system unbootable. > > ??? If I am booted off a CD/DVD drive I just do not want my system > to be touched. I am fine if the dist mounts my drives automagically > in read-only mode but if that currently forces journal replay then no, > thanks. ;) I agree, it isn't a great situation. Nonetheless, it has always been thus for ext3, and so far we've muddled along. Unless and until we can replay the journal in-memory without touching the on-disk data, we are stuck with it. We can't refuse to mount an unclean FS, as that would break booting. We also can't ignore the journal by default, if/when we get a patch to do so at all, as that effectively corrupts random chunks of the FS. Fine for forensics and recovery; not so much for booting from. > M. Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html