From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pobox.fab.redhat.com (pobox.fab.redhat.com [10.33.63.12]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1CKHIVG018345 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:17:19 -0500 Received: from breeves.fab.redhat.com (breeves.fab.redhat.com [10.33.0.40]) by pobox.fab.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1CKHFWE018581 for ; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:17:16 -0500 Message-ID: <499483E1.3020509@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:17:37 +0000 From: "Bryn M. Reeves" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Re: About fstab and fsck References: <3a4237470902110745l7f4ebda9s3539a329e83dace6@mail.gmail.com> <68c491a60902120038g6cede40ckaa5ae58600f5ff21@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: bmr@redhat.com, LVM general discussion and development List-Id: LVM general discussion and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: LVM general discussion and development Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> 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. 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. > 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 :-) Bryn.