UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY

[sthaug at nethelp.no]

> > IMHO, a dirty filesystem should not be mounted until it's been fully
> > analysed/scanned by fsck.  So again, people are putting faith into
> > UFS2+SU despite actual evidence proving that it doesn't handle all
> > scenarios.
> 
> Yes, I think the background fsck should be disabled by default, with a
> possibility to enable it if the user is sure that nothing will
> interfere with soft updates.

Having been bitten by problems in this area more than once, I now always
disable background fsck. Having it disabled by default has my vote too.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug at nethelp.no