On 8/31/26 12:49 PM, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 17:53:04 +0200,
Nick Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
There are some basic things you can do to keep your FFS2 file system
a bit "safer" -- a big one is separating writable space from read-only
space, and keeping the read-only space mounted, well, read-only. When
you need to update the data, remount RW, update, remount RO.
Why not use sync when?
Again, the question is...how do you define "safe"?
I'm not in a position to test, but I *suspect* a sync mount will
still have an fsck after a hard reboot. Even if the file system
is in better shape,
Some advantages to RO go well beyond file system integrity,
including speed of recovery after a crash/power interruption
and some extra resistance to an administrative error, such as
rm -r *.
Sure, if you can't read-only a file system, sync is better than
default. But in general, "safe" is going to be a complete design,
with a thorough examination of risks, consequences, costs, and
options, not just the choice of a file system-of-the-month.
Nick.
