> > There is no _need_ to do so. It is just an extra level of safety to do > > regular checks to detect inconsistencies as early as possible. This is > > like doing backups: You don't _have_ to do them but it is generally > > considered a wise choice to do so. > >> that something might be wrong, then let the fs check itself - but not > >> just because the computer has been sut off cleanly off a couple of > >> times. > > The problem is that often you have to check the filesystem to _find_ that > > there is a reason that something might be wrong. Obviously the other > > solution is to wait until a inconsistency has managed to garble all your > > data. > ... and not to forget: you can always abort an unwanted "regular" ext3 > filesystem check during boot with CTRL-C.
Well, for me the question remains why most other filesystems seemingly don't need this regular checks and are nevertheless considered safe enough?? It's obviously not my decision and I will simply stay with ReiserFS, but I would consider it a bad decision to let loose an filesystem on the average home user which forces him to do regular checks. (Situation might be differnt for servers which run 24/7 and where absolute data integrity is a must.) If I shut down the computer I want it shut down (and safe to disconnect from power), if I turn it on, I want to have the desktop running as fast as possible. I - as a home user - don't want to supervise the boot- or shutdown-process, whether the computer decides to do some time consuming self-diagnosis. Just my opinion, based on the fact that Ext2 self checks drove me nuts in former days ;). Alex --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
