On Friday 14 September 2007 13:35, Aaron Kulkis wrote: > > They tell that explicitely that is dangerous when you run fsck. > > The only time I ever ran fsck.reiserfs was after crashes > (boot up would detect that the fs was "stale" and ran it > automatically...leaving unresolved errors, which would dump > the system into run-level S and force me to run fsck.reiserfs > again manually, until there were no more unresolved errors).
What year that happened Aaron? I remember once it happened with very early version, and after that I used ext2 for a while. When reiserfs became default I installed it again and ever since I'm happy user. Blackout doesn't mean fsck every time. > Perhaps the default behavior on Reiserfs was wrong? Could be. As you can read in the article reiserfs is easy to signal panic if hardware is bad. Other file systems are not that easy at halting the system. Taking that running fsck.reiserfs under circumstances is equivalent to mkfs.reiserfs as proponents of ext3 like to underscore, signaling panic to often is not the best strategy, although I can't say that since I installed it again I had sudden kernel panic (computer freeze) ever. -- Regards, Rajko. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
