On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 23:53, Feizhou wrote: > >> How serious a level of damage before it refuses -y? > > > > Just guessing, but probably anytime 2 or more concurrent writes > > had allocated space but not completed the updates. > > > >> I cannot remember any time that I have not been able to do -y and there > >> have been times when I saw a huge amount of errors being automatically > >> fixed. > > > > With ext2 my odds were at least one out of 10 that a busy > > machine wouldn't come back up automatically after a power > > glitch. Ext3 is much better because it normally just > > uses the journal to recover. > > > > Hang on, I might be off on a tangent here. Are you saying there is a > difference between fsck on ext2 and fsck on ext3 (when not doing journal > recovery of course) when it comes to -y? I don't know about that. The default unattended startup just uses the journal on ext3 instead of fsck so the odds are much better that it will complete by itself. If there is a difference in fsck it is probably more version-related than ext2 vs ext3. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com