4 ms·
The real answer is to use a filesystem that doesn't require off-line integrity checks, and to disable automatic fsck when you're stuck with something that does.
by db48x 12y ago
The real answer is to use a filesystem that doesn't require off-line integrity checks, and to disable automatic fsck when you're stuck with something that does.
I use ZFS, which does this sort of thing in the background while the system is live. In fact, every read from a ZFS filesystem does a complete integrity check of everything that read depends on. If it finds an error during that process it fixes it before returning data to the caller, or returns a read error if it cannot. Those errors get collected and logged, so that if they do occur (usually due to faulty hardware) you can recover the effected files from backup.
This is much better than a surprise fsck when you're running late.
- watt 12y agoThe real story is the toxic attitude of some people on debian-users mailing list. If you use ZFS, you probably are on FreeBSD. Then you would not see the advocacy of systemd that sometimes borders on insane, as a problem.
- atoponce 12y agohttps://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zfs-on-debian-gnulinux/ https://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zfs-on-debian-gnulinux...
- VLM 12y agoBut then you're stuck with systemd, which you could avoid with Freebsd. Its kind of like upgrading an outdoor carpentry project, like a deck, from nails to deck screws, then just in case you miss the feeling of hitting your thumb with a hammer, someone helpfully finds a link to install deck screws using a hammer. That's impressive in its own way, but ... I think I'll continue moving everything to Freebsd instead.
- mbq 12y agoSame holds for btrfs.
- bensummers 12y agoDidn't CoreOS just remove btrfs because it tended to break? Also: https://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs-is-better-than-btrfs https://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-software/ways-in-which-zfs...
- cmurf 12y agoThe cited article has a. nothing to do with CoreOS, and b. contains very incorrect information about btrfs, not just a matter of also being outdated. e.g. "btrfs does not allow you to organize subvolumes" has never been true. The article must be old because send/receive, deduplication, and preliminary raid56 support have been there for a while.
- digi_owl 12y agoDamn ironic, given that Poettering wants to build a whole OS using cloud containerization and BTRFS. And CoreOS depends heavily on Poettering's systemd (to the point that they have built their own containerization system on top of it).
- foxhill 12y agono! the whole point of this post is to complain about the attitude of debian devs. for you to suggest "not getting yourself in this situation in the first place", well, that's exactly the bullshit behaviour that i think most of us find utterly abhorrent.
- fsniper 12y agoOf course zfs is superior to many fs in many ways. But this is also a systemd way of telling people to "use this, not anything other. That's the best". Systemd people are not helping the community.
- cmurf 12y agoSame for XFS and Btrfs, both of which should have fstab fs_passno set to 0, both of which have place holder fsck that don't actually do a file system check. The actual check is done from user space on an unmounted file system. Strictly speaking ext4 doesn't require it either, it's just highly recommended that there be a periodic e2fsck -f (i.e. check even if the journal is consistent and says the file system is clean), by default this is 180 days but the user can modify or disable this with tune2fs. It's possible to make it mount-count or time-dependent. See tune2fs -i.