On 14.08.2010 19:03, Linda Walsh wrote: > > > Dave Chinner wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:48:01PM -0700, Linda A. Walsh wrote: >>> Some time ago, when I upgraded a system, I ran into problems when >>> it hit a file system that was offline. It wasn't a critical >>> partition, so it normally wouldn't have been an issue, but somewhere >>> along the line >>> someone mangled fsck.xfs. >> >> fsck.xfs is behaving identically to e2fsck when presented with an >> invalid block device - it exits with an error of 8, which is defined >> as "operational error" in the e2fsck man page. > --- > That may be fine for the ext2 fs, but I am asserting that in actual > practice, with xfs, it does more harm than good. I would suggest using autofs, so that you can keep fstab to an absolut minimum. Except for devices related to booting, i personally mount everything either with autofs or manually(In that case it's normaly a one-shot thing). In my case that are all "non boot related" devices, DVD-drive, network filesystems, some "tmpfs"es for playing, removable-devices, etc. Bis denn -- Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
