background fsck can be dangerous!

[Niki Denev]

Luke Crawford wrote:

 >> disabling background fsck while continuing to run soft updates
 >> will make little difference.
 >>
 >> Personally, I would recommend that you keep your disk mount
 >> configuration as it is, and that you buy a UPS.
 >>


Well, i surely need an UPS, that's out of question,
but the problem that i had was not about loss/corruption on
files on disk.
Before the background fsck finished some files were unreadable,
and they happened to be some libraries used by my mail software.
After the fsck finished these libraries were accessible again and
everything was normal and working, at least this is what it looked
like to me.
So, i think that if i had disabled background fsck (as i did now)
i should have skipped the loss of these about ten emails...

--niki