From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Apr 5 2:50:58 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E701937B43E; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:50:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f359ogo16270; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 02:50:42 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG, mckusick@mckusick.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Background Fsck Message-ID: <20010405025042.G17723@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200104050938.f359ctI09858@Magelan.Leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200104050938.f359ctI09858@Magelan.Leidinger.net>; from Alexander@Leidinger.net on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 11:38:50AM +0200 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Alexander Leidinger [010405 02:48] wrote: > On 5 Apr, Robert Watson wrote: > > > Another usability question. Was wondering about the possibility of > > multiple background fsck's getting started at a time, et al, possibly due > > to bad behavior by the user. Can the user get shot in the foot in the > > following situations: > > [1-3] > > 4) They shutdown the machine while the background fsck is in progress. I think it's already been explained that a restart is ok. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message