--IMjqdzrDRly81ofr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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=
iling
> > of it at some point later to figure out where its spinning).
>=20
> 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=
=20
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=
=20
will only rarely need these fsck tools. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--IMjqdzrDRly81ofr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCWbcKWz+3JHUci9cRAhmpAKCZ20MD4ogilUwCk9fLGCTufs6ovACeMDYc
6Ie045tyhGULfhc09w1KVQY=
=JXwX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--IMjqdzrDRly81ofr--