On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:02:04 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
> idiots ...

oops... no need to read further...


--
Rick

Hadron wrote:

> M

[snip]

You sad bastard, try to get a life.
--
Regards,
[tv]

....How do you know if you run out of invisible ink?

Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
Good to the last supper

Hadron wrote:
> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general


So that's why you aren't building software for MS.

Hadron wrote:

>
> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
> idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length about the
> superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the COLA "advocates"
> I turn my main development machine off at the end of the day. I leave on
> my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail server.So how come every "now
> and again" (yes I know I can stop it) does the OS choose to do a disk
> check which takes about 10 minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>
>
> Uh oh.
>
>
> I know why.
>
> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their reaction if
> Windows did this?
>
> I can.


Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult task
for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you trust a disk if
it did not do a 100% file system integrity check every now and then?
(File system integrity check != defragging!!!!)

Don't become a questionair escapee.

Just answer the question.




[Bear in mind, that is if you have one after all your spliffing
(and further caveats of a moronic nature that would have
to apply in your case)
you could have booted from USB, a floppy or a CD and
not through your default OS installed on the HD and did something to
the hard disk too stupid for words to describe.]

On Jun 14, 5:26*am, 7 wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
> > Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
> > understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
> > idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length about the
> > superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the COLA "advocates"
> > I turn my main development machine off at the end of the day. I leave on
> > my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail server.So how come every "now
> > and again" (yes I know I can stop it) *does the OS choose to do a disk
> > check which takes about 10 minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>
> > Uh oh.
>
> > I know why.
>
> > For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their reaction if
> > Windows did this?
>
> > I can.
>
> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult task
> for you I can imagine), and ask *yourself this - would you trust a disk if
> it did not do a 100% file system integrity check every now and then?
> (File system integrity check != defragging!!!!)
>
> Don't become a questionair escapee.
>
> Just answer the question.
>

He answered that question in his original post. Read you retard, read!

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:02:04 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
> idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length about the
> superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the COLA "advocates"
> I turn my main development machine off at the end of the day. I leave on
> my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail server.So how come every "now
> and again" (yes I know I can stop it) does the OS choose to do a disk
> check which takes about 10 minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>
>
> Uh oh.
>
>
> I know why.
>
> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their reaction if
> Windows did this?
>
> I can.

Well that one really brought the Linux loons out of the cage.
Of course none of them can answer your question.
Maybe they are too busy using Windows to earn the rent for their basement
apartments, pizza and Jolt.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

On 2008-06-14, 7 wrote:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>>
>> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
>> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
>> idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length about the
>> superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the COLA "advocates"
>> I turn my main development machine off at the end of the day. I leave on
>> my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail server.So how come every "now
>> and again" (yes I know I can stop it) does the OS choose to do a disk
>> check which takes about 10 minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>>
>>
>> Uh oh.
>>
>>
>> I know why.
>>
>> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their reaction if
>> Windows did this?
>>
>> I can.
>
>
> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult task
> for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you trust a disk if
> it did not do a 100% file system integrity check every now and then?
> (File system integrity check != defragging!!!!)

There's also the question of 10 minutes to check a 2 gig filesystem.
Sounds like Quark has ****ed up his system again. It either doesn't run
linux at all, or it can't configure its system properly. Take your pick.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:56:50 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> On 2008-06-14, 7 wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
>>> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For
>>> ever idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length
>>> about the superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the
>>> COLA "advocates" I turn my main development machine off at the end
>>> of the day. I leave on my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail
>>> server.So how come every "now and again" (yes I know I can stop
>>> it) does the OS choose to do a disk check which takes about 10
>>> minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>>>
>>> Uh oh.
>>>
>>> I know why.

Clearly you do not.

>>> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their
>>> reaction if Windows did this?
>>>
>>> I can.

Windows doesn't need it as it is totally screwed after a few months
of use. Gates' called it bit rot.

>> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult
>> task for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you
>> trust a disk if it did not do a 100% file system integrity check
>> every now and then? (File system integrity check !=
>> defragging!!!!)
>
> There's also the question of 10 minutes to check a 2 gig filesystem.
> Sounds like Quark has ****ed up his system again. It either doesn't
> run linux at all, or it can't configure its system properly. Take
> your pick.

Quark just talks out of his ass.

hardon quack writes:

> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:56:50 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>
>> On 2008-06-14, 7 wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
>>>> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For
>>>> ever idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length
>>>> about the superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the
>>>> COLA "advocates" I turn my main development machine off at the end
>>>> of the day. I leave on my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail
>>>> server.So how come every "now and again" (yes I know I can stop
>>>> it) does the OS choose to do a disk check which takes about 10
>>>> minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>>>>
>>>> Uh oh.
>>>>
>>>> I know why.
>
> Clearly you do not.
>
>>>> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their
>>>> reaction if Windows did this?
>>>>
>>>> I can.
>
> Windows doesn't need it as it is totally screwed after a few months
> of use. Gates' called it bit rot.
>
>>> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult
>>> task for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you
>>> trust a disk if it did not do a 100% file system integrity check
>>> every now and then? (File system integrity check !=
>>> defragging!!!!)
>>
>> There's also the question of 10 minutes to check a 2 gig filesystem.
>> Sounds like Quark has ****ed up his system again. It either doesn't
>> run linux at all, or it can't configure its system properly. Take
>> your pick.
>
> Quark just talks out of his ass.

So, you are now denying that default installs of Debian do not do full
disk checks every "N" restarts?

And *if* the do, it does not take a long time?

LOL

The "advocates" lie some more.

--
It explains a lot. I've not heard of anyone I know, anywhere, buying XP,
and I've not seen it sold whilst I've been in any shops.
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gregory Shearman

wrote
on 14 Jun 2008 21:56:50 GMT
:
> On 2008-06-14, 7 wrote:
>> Hadron wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
>>> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For ever
>>> idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length about the
>>> superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the COLA "advocates"
>>> I turn my main development machine off at the end of the day. I leave on
>>> my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail server.So how come every "now
>>> and again" (yes I know I can stop it) does the OS choose to do a disk
>>> check which takes about 10 minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?

When the filesystem is formatted, a count is included in
the superblock. Every mount, that count is decremented.
When that count reaches zero, a check in fsck.* will do a
more thorough check of the filesystem, and reset the count.

>>>
>>>
>>> Uh oh.
>>>
>>>
>>> I know why.
>>>
>>> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their reaction if
>>> Windows did this?
>>>
>>> I can.
>>
>>
>> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult task
>> for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you trust a disk if
>> it did not do a 100% file system integrity check every now and then?
>> (File system integrity check != defragging!!!!)
>
> There's also the question of 10 minutes to check a 2 gig filesystem.

Actually, that's pretty good for an ext2. I remember
waiting 40 minutes to have all my filesystems checked on
my old Pentium II system.

(That's prior to my discovering ext3. ;-) )

I don't remember how big the drives were, though.

> Sounds like Quark has ****ed up his system again. It either doesn't run
> linux at all, or it can't configure its system properly. Take your pick.
>

I don't think XP even *bothers*, unless the filesystem is
explicitly marked dirty -- which ntfsresize does.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

wrote
on Sun, 15 Jun 2008 06:14:23 +0200
:
> hardon quack writes:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:56:50 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-14, 7 wrote:
>>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most of us who really understand file systems and OSen in general
>>>>> understand that bugs are a part of life. As is house keeping. For
>>>>> ever idiots like Roy and High Plains Hypocrite explain at length
>>>>> about the superiority of "Linux" filesystems. Unlike most of the
>>>>> COLA "advocates" I turn my main development machine off at the end
>>>>> of the day. I leave on my (Debian) Web server and my (Debian) Mail
>>>>> server.So how come every "now and again" (yes I know I can stop
>>>>> it) does the OS choose to do a disk check which takes about 10
>>>>> minutes on my 2 gig /home drive?
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh oh.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know why.
>>
>> Clearly you do not.
>>
>>>>> For practical and necessary reasons. Can you imagine their
>>>>> reaction if Windows did this?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can.
>>
>> Windows doesn't need it as it is totally screwed after a few months
>> of use. Gates' called it bit rot.
>>
>>>> Look OK Quack, assume you are the perfect idiot, (not a difficult
>>>> task for you I can imagine), and ask yourself this - would you
>>>> trust a disk if it did not do a 100% file system integrity check
>>>> every now and then? (File system integrity check !=
>>>> defragging!!!!)
>>>
>>> There's also the question of 10 minutes to check a 2 gig filesystem.
>>> Sounds like Quark has ****ed up his system again. It either doesn't
>>> run linux at all, or it can't configure its system properly. Take
>>> your pick.
>>
>> Quark just talks out of his ass.
>
> So, you are now denying that default installs of Debian do not do full
> disk checks every "N" restarts?

N is a variable number, from 18 to 31 or so -- but yes,
all distros do; it's code in the file system utilities
that sets it during initial volume formatting.

>
> And *if* the do, it does not take a long time?

The exact time taken depends on the complexity of the file system (a
nearly empty filesystem will take no time at all, as will a filesystem
that has a few large files), the filesystem type, the geometry of the
disk, and to a lesser extent the processor speed and available RAM.

>
> LOL
>
> The "advocates" lie some more.
>

NTFS has a defragmentation locking system. It is possible
that Windows can check a mounted volume, and does so on a
periodic basis. (It is not clear to me that it actually
does, or whether that's a better way to check it than
Linux's offline preboot check.)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #12995733:
bool f(bool g, bool h) { if(g) h = true; else h = false; return h;}
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:39:22 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

> NTFS has a defragmentation locking system. It is possible
> that Windows can check a mounted volume, and does so on a
> periodic basis. (It is not clear to me that it actually
> does, or whether that's a better way to check it than
> Linux's offline preboot check.)

NTFS is a journalling filesystem. If the journal is not corrupt (and
presumably there's a way to tell that), the filesystem does not need to
be checked. The journal can be used to ensure integrity by replaying or
rolling back transactions. This is much faster than doing a full check.

Likewise, EXT3 is a journalled version of EXT2. By default, Linux will
still do the check every N mounts or M days even if the filesystem was
cleanly unmounted, just like it does for EXT2. It is trivally easy to
turn that off if you trust the journal as much as Microsoft does:

tune2fs -c0 -i0 /dev/whatever

This is one of those belt-and-suspenders kinds of things. Personally, I
turn off the extra check on my computers and I haven't had a problem in
years of doing so.


--
-| Bob Hauck
-| http://www.haucks.org/