Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:04:53 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@googlemail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>, Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>, invalid.pointer@gmail.com, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Question about forcing fsck at boottime Message-ID: <b79ecaef0903310804r4db0d3f6j8c2b952a0656be64@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090331135528.49012f60@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <49D1B297.8060307@gmail.com> <20090331080137.31122795@gluon.draftnet> <49D1F0BA.7050209@gmail.com> <20090331135528.49012f60@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:00:18 +0530 manish jain <invalid.pointer@gmail.com> wrote: > Having bgfsck enabled is like > inviting a dragon to dinner when this happens. 2009/3/31 RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>: > If you've done a normal install, soft-updates aren't enabled on /, > so it will get foreground checked by default. > > If I were you I'd reboot into single user mode and do a full fsck on it. Seriously, why is everyone against background fsck? Can anyone give a good reason? Please? Chris -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b79ecaef0903310804r4db0d3f6j8c2b952a0656be64>