On Aug 6, 2006, at 11:51 PM, Igor Robul wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:35:31PM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and
unclean umount.
Background fsck does not work well with big filesystems, it can
literaly
make server usel
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 08:35:31PM +0100, Martin Hepworth wrote:
> Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and
> unclean umount.
Background fsck does not work well with big filesystems, it can literaly
make server useless for long period of time, sometimes I just boot
OK I stand corrected...
softupdates "reduces" the possibility of having to fsck a filesystem
;-)
--
Martin
On 8/5/06, Freminlins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/08/06, Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and
>
On 05/08/06, Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and
unclean umount.
No it doesn't. Absolutely not.
After an unclean shutdown fsck runs in the background. And sometimes it
can't do that. Here's an example:
Jul 23 1
Softupdates removes the issue if havinh to fsck filesystems after and
unclean umount.
On 8/3/06, N. Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Lutz Rabing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> is someone still working on the "bigdisk" project?
> it becomes
> more an more easy to create d
--- Lutz Rabing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi all,
>
> is someone still working on the "bigdisk" project?
> it becomes
> more an more easy to create disk arrays bigger than
> 2TB ... it
> would be a "really nice to have" feature.
>
> lutz
>
Nice to have, but I wouldn't want to fsck it! :)
