best practices using LVM and e2fsck- thanks for your input

[Stephen Goldman]

Hello All,
    Thanks for you input on this issue.

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Komarinski" <mkomarinski-GqRSzq0LZOzYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org>
To: <discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: best practices using LVM and e2fsck


> On 07/01/2010 09:47 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>>> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom Metro
>>>
>>> I don't recall the ext version being mentioned in this thread. Your
>>> concern seems to imply v2. Would switching to v3 or v4 be an option,
>>> which should eliminate the possibility of a long fsck run?
>>>
>> In ext2, you must fsck every time there's an ungraceful dismount.
>> In ext3/4, you can avoid fsck's after ungraceful dismounts, but still, 
>> once
>> in every ... something like 180 days or 90 reboots or something like that
>> ... It will still fsck during startup.
>>
> You realize that both checks can be disabled, right?
>
> I've been doing this so long, it's almost habit:
>
> mke2fs -j /dev/my_vg/my_lv
> tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 -m 1 /dev/my_vg/my_lv
>
> After this, the per-mount and day-elapsed checks are disabled, and the
> amount of disk set aside for root has been reduced from 5% to 1%. (Let's
> see that start a new argumen..I mean thread)
>
> I'm of the opinion that if a filesystem has enough of a hardware problem
> that it gets corrupted, you should just wipe it and restore from backup
> - after, of course, correcting the hardware issue.  You do have backups,
> right??
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>