Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.0.3x I found something unique... | Date | Thu, 01 Oct 1998 11:30:11 +0200 | From | Olaf Titz <> |
| |
> 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/
| |