* Rudolf Leitgeb <[email protected]> [2011-12-19 10:17]: > Am Freitag, 16. Dezember 2011, 21:49:18 schrieb Henning Brauer: > > in these cases - where "runs" is the top priority and manual > > intervention is hard - you most probably want to run with ro / and an > > mfs or three. > This is one nice approach but doesn't cover features like user changeable > settings and parameters, much less local error logs.
gotta compromise for crippled systems. solvable with a little shell script run from cron and rc.shutdown. > > this is still a bit like "fixing" holey condoms with duct tape. > You fixed the holey condoms issue by replacing them with 5mm thick kevlar. > Your solution is certainly very l33t, but only few will want to use it ;) for the scenario i had in mind - servers in some data center - that is the one solution. > There are, however, countless situations where "fsck -y" or similar is the > most workable solution, and attacking people who use "fsck -y" after > careful consideration as irresponsible cheapskates is neither helpful nor > professional. I don't buy the "countless" at all, we're really only talking embedded here, and for embedded style use cases you'll have to adopt. that is the "special" case and not the norm. while i was mostly talking about a console and not fsck -y, i do believe that an automagic fsck -y is pretty damn stupid. > Of all the experts here: how many of you have ever intervened in a failed > "fsck -p" situation with anything else than an fsck and a barrage of "y" ? while we're really good in that and fsck almost always succeeds and fixes things up i have seen different. -- Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services. Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully Managed Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/
