[ale] fsck opinions

[Randy Ramsdell]

 > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Randy Ramsdell 
<rramsdell at activedg.com> wrote:
 >> Journaling does not have anything to do with file system integrity.
 >> However not sure why to do fsck on every reboot. If data integrity is
 >> the top concern then fsck on reboot.
 >
 >
 >

James Sumners wrote:
> Journaling has everything to do with file system integrity. The point
> of a file system supporting journals is to guard against errors due to
> sudden restarts or crashes. But you're right, a journal doesn't meant
> the file system will _never_ be corrupted.
> 
> I think that if you are using a journaled file system then you can get
> away with trying to mount it first. If the mount fails, then do the
> fsck. If the mount succeeds, verify that your data is still valid, and
> do a fsck during the next available down time.
> 
> In regard to a fsck taking hours, has anyone had that problem with
> JFS? I use JFS on my partitions/drives where I store a lot of large
> files (e.g. my DVR), and I have never had a fsck on them take longer
> than 2 seconds.
> 

I should restate. A journaling file system was created to speed up 
reboot/crashe file system consistency checks and and as a bonus, "helps" 
with integrity, but is in no way negates the use of fsck.