UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY

[Miroslav Lachman]

sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:

>>>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.

Is there any possibility to selectively disable / enable background fsck 
on specified mount points?

I can imagine system, where root, /usr, /var and /tmp will be checked by 
fsck in foreground, but waiting to foreground fsck on data partitions of 
about 500GB or more (it can take up tens of minutes or "hours") is scary.
I need server with ssh running up "quickly" after the crash, so I can 
investigate what the problem was and not just sit and wait tens of 
minutes "if" machine gets online again or not... answering phone calls 
of clients in the meantime.

Miroslav Lachman