Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:47:09 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: Karol Kwiatkowski <karol.kwiat@gmail.com> Cc: Chris <chrcoluk@gmail.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Subject: Re: fsck strangeness Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.1070823183408.26941D-100000@gaia.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <46CD4173.1080000@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote: > Ian Smith wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote: > > > If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does > > > background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only? > > > > Well I was referring to foreground fsck, and I still don't know why > > running it on a mounted fs is 'bad' when fsck runs in 'NO WRITE' mode > > anyway when it finds a fs is mounted, hence my query above. > > Here's my understanding: > > Mounted fs (rw) isn't in stable state, there may be some writes to it - > daemons, buffers flushes, etc. In this condition fsck can report > inconsistency. And fsck running in 'NO WRITE' won't help anyway :) a) Absolutely. b) Indeed it usually does, fairly consistently, especially on /var. c) No it won't help (except where it can help locate problems in a real mess like bad blocks), but the assertion in question was, can it hurt? Cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.1070823183408.26941D-100000>