lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.0.3x I found something unique...
Date
From
> You can sync though, then the next fsck isn't strictly necessary and you
> may be able to avoid it by hand.

Wrong. When the fs is not umounted, you have no _guarantee_ that it is
not corrupted. Consider the case where the runaway process held open
several files. The fs _may_ be consistent, but you can never know at
which point the process got stuck.

Ext2fs is stable enough that this _usually_ doesn't matter. I've had
more than one power outage with the subsequent fsck not finding any
errors. But strictly speaking, the fsck _is_ necessary. (The only way
to avoid it is clearing the dirty flag manually, an action which is
definitely not recommended in any case.)

olaf


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.032 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site