Why go with such big partitions when well planned out smaller ones will
suffice. I'd hate to think of what it would take in the way of tapes to
back up a 30G partition. And how much data do you lose if the
partition, for some reason, decides to become inaccessible.
Ken Wilson
First Law of Optimisation: The speed of a non-working program is
irrelevant
(Steve Heller, 'Efficient C/C++ Programming')
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 1999 10:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] maximal mount count?
Ok, but will we need to wait >15 minutes in the near future when a 20Gb
or 30
Gb partition will be more common ?, that%s my point, sounds terrific.
Regards,
Jorge Carminati.
MIME:[EMAIL PROTECTED] con fecha 12/10/99 16:14:18
Destinatarios: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @ INTERNET
CC: (cci: Jorge Carminati/BNP)
Asunto: Re: [expert] maximal mount count?
Ugh... that sounds about right for a 2 gig partition. I'd hate to sit
through
a
15-30!
Cyclone
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Any idea why is so slow ?, I have a 2Gb partition and it takes 2-3
minutes
> every time it checks the fs.
> What times are employed under a 15 or 30 Gb ext2 partition ?. Is there
another
> tool to speed up thist check ?.
>
> Thanks for any comment.
> Jorge Carminati.
>
> MIME:[EMAIL PROTECTED] con fecha 12/10/99 09:34:17
> Destinatarios: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @ INTERNET
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] @ INTERNET (cci: Jorge Carminati/BNP)
> Asunto: RE: [expert] maximal mount count?
>
> At 08:47 AM 10/12/99 +0100, Bois, Mathieu wrote:
> >It also happens the next time you reboot, if you exit from Linux
without
> >unmounting the partitions (typicly, in the case of a power outage).
>
> no, that's just a normal fsck. he is referring specifically to the
forced
> fsck because of the maximal mount count.
