>>>> filesystem... so considering its size, I'd turn it off. Hopefully the
>>>> "fsck takes _forever_" problem will die when btrfs becomes the
>>>> standard filesystem.
>>> Just a reminder: Linux has xfs since 2002. A full-blown fsck on xfs is
>>> a rare thing.
>> Similarly, I don't know of any case where fsck on an ext3 partition
>> turned out to be useful. As a matter of fact, my home router's ext3
> I wouldn't go that far. It all depends what messed the file system up in the
> first place.
That's the thing: nothing did. So why run fsck at all?
> Ext3 bugs, minor scribbling and suchlike generally get tidied up
> reasonably well by e2fsck. It's quite true that with major corruption
> to the file system there's often not an awful lot left afterwards but
> that's true of many other file systems as well.
Oh, you're thinking of using fsck for recovery purposes.
That's a different situation. I was just talking about the idea of "not
needing to do fsck any more", which is pretty much already the case for
XFS and ext3, AFAIK.
>> partition is never fsck'd (it would take way too much time to this poor
>> 266MHz thingy to fsck my 1TB filesystem).
> /me wonders why a router needs a 1TB fs :-)
Actually I call it "router" because it was sold as such and it replaced
a machine which I originally used as such as well. Really it's just
a small home server which stores&plays my music, stores my movies and
other such things, ... It doesn't actually do any routing at all.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
linux-lvm mailing list
linux-lvm@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
read the LVM HOW-TO at http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/
