From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265398AbUGNTzj (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:55:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265418AbUGNTzh (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:55:37 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29]:23442 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265398AbUGNTzg (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:55:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:55:26 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Pavel Machek Cc: kernel list Subject: Re: ext3: bump mount count on journal replay Message-ID: <20040714195526.GF3229@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Pavel Machek , kernel list References: <20040714131525.GA1369@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040714131525.GA1369@elf.ucw.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040523i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:15:25PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Currently, you get fsck "just to be sure" once every ~30 clean > mounts or ~30 hard shutdowns. I believe that hard shutdown is way more > likely to cause some disk corruption, so it would make sense to fsck > more often when system is hit by hard shutdown. > At least in theory an unclean shutdown is not going to cause any problems, unless the hardware is screwy, in which case even a single hard shutdown is going to cause problems. I'm not sure that it really makes sense to arbitrarily state that a hard shutdown is 5 times more likely to cause problems. We could make it be configurable, I suppose, but I'm not sure it's worth it to add all that extra complexity. (Heck, we could also argue using a similar reasoning that software suspends also increases the chances of filesystem corruption "if something bad happens". :-) - Ted