From: Andreas Dilger Subject: Re: e2fsck and human intervention Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 13:19:13 +0800 Message-ID: <20070307051913.GF5723@schatzie.adilger.int> References: <1173112017.6300.14.camel@systems03.mmm.com> <20070306024024.GZ6662@schatzie.adilger.int> <1173191227.11804.9.camel@systems03.mmm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Drake Return-path: Received: from mail.clusterfs.com ([206.168.112.78]:45716 "EHLO mail.clusterfs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932275AbXCGFTR (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 00:19:17 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1173191227.11804.9.camel@systems03.mmm.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mar 06, 2007 09:27 -0500, Daniel Drake wrote: > OK. Given that write caching may be required for performance reasons or > there might be other possible reasons which would result in > preen-unrepairable fs corruption on power loss, my question is now: Is > it a really bad idea to run "e2fsck -y" on every boot? If your primary concern is not halting the boot, then yes. 99% of people only know to answer "y" to e2fsck anyways. Cheers, Andreas -- Andreas Dilger Principal Software Engineer Cluster File Systems, Inc.