Re: Minutes from the Technical Board, 2008-07-15
Why not move this process to shutdown time instead of boot time? The user could walk away and let the computer finish checking the file systems then shut down. If an error is detected, then the check would be repeated at the next boot up. Bryce Harrington wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: == Filesystem checking / AutoFsck == A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter about how and when it performs filesystem integrity checks (fsck). Decision: This should be discussed more widely in the developer community Action: Scott to start a thread on ubuntu-devel/-discuss I find the autofsck to be most notable on my laptop, perhaps because I reboot it more frequently, and because it usually chooses to autofsck at some inopportune time. I don't know if laptop harddrives need fsck more than desktop's, but I wouldn't mind seeing the frequency be reduced for laptops. Alternatively, maybe the autofsck could be made to take a few more factors into account, such as total run time since last fsck, total absolute time since last fsck, drive age, etc. Bryce -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly unmounted the last time it was online? (crash, power fail) Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be adequate. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
regular fsck runs are too disturbing
For this to be true, you need another assumption: All hardware is absolutely reliable which just is not the case. ... Windows runs on the same potentially flakey hardware that Linux does, and it doesn't routinely perform a chkdsk. Most people are quite happy with this and only need to chkdsk when something goes wrong and they suspect filesystem damage. The argument about random hardware corruption does not hold up in the face of this evidence. Yes, but... Running fsck unconditionally every N boots is a crude solution. It ignores the fact that some systems have done millions of file operations and others have done a few thousand. It ignores the availability of hardware health/status information available from modern disks (different for every make/model?). So my question is: can it be made IO volume dependent? Can it make use of hardware status information (i.e. run fsck unconditionally if there were more than normal rate of soft errors (ECC corrections) or bad tracks)? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Draining the font swamp (Matt Zimmerman)
What I'm concerned with in this thread is the experience of an average user, who cares very little about fonts, just wants their applications to work, and be able to display readable text in their language. We want to have the simplest, cleanest infrastructure to provide this. This is the challenge for any complex application. Provide simple defaults for ordinary or casual usage, but allow access to the complexity if wanted. Too few developers think about this. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
