Subject: Re: experiments with lfs
To: Hubert Feyrer <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/10/2005 16:30:18
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 02:04:53AM +0200, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> In article <20050406023846.GJ21848@bcd.geek.com.au> you wrote:
> > Until then, it seemed to behave flawlessly, and certainly worked
> > better than the last time I tried it. Before filling it, I unmounted
> > it and ran a fsck_lfs, which came up clean (though it took a *very*
> > long time and seemed to be heavily CPU bound, I'll try and do some prof=
> > of it at some point later to figure out where its spinning).
> Wasn't the point of LFS to not require a time-consuming fsck-run?
Note he isn't running fsck in order to boot, he's running it to see how=20
well the file system is doing. We will always need fsck tools for all file=
systems. Life happens and we'll need to be able to cope.
One main hope though with LFS and with journaled file systems is that you=
will only rarely need these fsck tools. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----