3 ms·
Running an occasional scrub is probably a good idea. I don't think any of the other commands mentioned here should be required. Naturally the disk should be bal
by kevincox 3y ago
Running an occasional scrub is probably a good idea. I don't think any of the other commands mentioned here should be required. Naturally the disk should be balanced as it is written so you shouldn't need explicit balances unless you added a new drive when they others were quite full.
- Gigachad 3y agoIf it was a good idea, I assume it should already be happening for me. What would be the point of mindlessly running some command periodically?
- kevincox 3y agoBecause different use cases have different requirements. So having the maintenance command be separate from the filesystem gives ultimate flexibility.
- Gigachad 3y agoThe OP comment didn't give any context for what you should be thinking to make a judgement call on. Just blindly "run this command periodically". If I'm not making any actual decision, it should just be run for me by default.
- bravetraveler 3y agoDoes your car wash itself? /s It very well may be! Depending on your distribution... they may already have similar services/timers for periodic scrubbing On Fedora they aren't provided; but are with Arch Unless you run an array it's fairly meaningless, beyond being an administrative-reporting tool. It can't fix failed checksums without mirrors or parity I think the checksums are validated on read anyway, so it's mostly to mitigate bitrot - very specific to 'glacial' storage
- lmm 3y ago> If it was a good idea, I assume it should already be happening for me. It would, if you were running a well-designed/maintained operating system. Unfortunately many Linux distributions make poor decisions.