On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, Nicholas Vinen wrote:
>
> No, it's best to have extensive checks in user space rather than simple,
> yet expensive, checks in the kernel. The checks have been there forever
> and haven't caught much that isn't caught by the dirty fs flag.
Sorry to jump into this threat. But I have to disagree wholeheartedly!!!!
I experienced myself certain cases of buggy scsi drivers, broken hardware
(scsi, motherboard or memory) wrong setup (dual boot machines with MS Win
and linux and wrong partition setup) where exactly this silly consistency
check came up and pointed out that something odd happened with the disk.
The dirty flag would not deal with that issue.
I understand that esp. on servers which huge disks which are (normally)
24/7 in use (and solely under linux) and have known working or at least
very high quality hardware this test slows things down and has only little
use (so might not be worth the added downtime in case of a reboot).
Now, for the experienced admin people running these machines it should be
a noissue to add a nocheck option to their fstabs. And as we saw from the
tiny patch, the kernel bloat is ridiculous too.
However, for the majority of desktop linux installations with not that
experienced users (I don't dare to call them admins, although they are the
admins), these tests are sensible and helpful (and the bootup delay caused
is not that high too) and need to be default because they'd not able them
otherwise (because they would not know they should and how).
Just my 2 pence,
Michael.
--Michael Weller: eowmob@exp-math.uni-essen.de, eowmob@ms.exp-math.uni-essen.de, or even mat42b@spi.power.uni-essen.de. If you encounter an eowmob account on any machine in the net, it's very likely it's me.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:30 EST