On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Lindsay Sprinter wrote:
On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, James Harper wrote:
Is a routine fsck on ext* filesystems still recommended, or just done because "that's the way we've always done it"?
James
I have been using Linux now for nearly 20 years, for most of that time I have used (and still use) ext2 or ext3. During the twenty years I have never seen one of these "sceduled" fsck's produce any errors caused by a failure in the drive or the file system.
I choose ext2/3 as the most stable Linux filesystem for many years, based on my experience and other reports(e.g. the XFS-related threads on this mailinglist and others did not give me too much confidence) At least 2007-2010 (maybe starting earlier) "tune2fs -i 0 -c 0 <fs>" was part of the build because I did not see a benefit in running regular fscks.
My 20th aniversary of using linux will come up around June July next year, How many people remember SLS and Ygdrasil?
I bought my first PC at home Northern summer 1993, a AMD 386 40 MHz system with 4 MB Ram (and a black&white 14" monitor). Finally "Unix" at home:-) I downloaded a bunch of 3 1/2" floppies from ther FTP server at Uni Rostock. I am not sure anymore whether it was SLS or the first Slackware release. It came with "b[1-?]" (base system) disks, "x[1-?]" (X11) disks, and I believe there were two or three more series (with different letters) but I don't remember which. One was a "n" (network) series, supplying TCP/IP utilities, I think. Cheers Peter