| 1 |
Allan Gottlieb wrote: |
| 2 |
> At Sun, 01 Mar 2009 13:57:30 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> As it's Sunday, here's an odd little thing. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> Not long ago, while booting this machine, four ext3 partitions |
| 8 |
>>> needed checks on remount count reaching zero. They had been set to |
| 9 |
>>> 23, 24, 25 and 26 mounts. (I didn't choose the numbers; they were |
| 10 |
>>> allocated at the time I was creating the file system.) |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> Now, this box does get rebooted, but hardly 23 x 24 x 25 x 26 = |
| 13 |
>>> 358,800 times all told. At, say, two reboots per day, that would |
| 14 |
>>> take rather a long time: a little under 500 years if my arithmetic |
| 15 |
>>> is working. |
| 16 |
>> I think you're confused. 23 means a check each 23 mounts. With 2 |
| 17 |
>> mounts per day, that's a check every 12 days for the first and second |
| 18 |
>> disk. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I think the point is that 23, 24, 25, 26 are relatively prime so that, |
| 21 |
> if N is initially zero, it takes 23x24x25x26 increments initially for (N |
| 22 |
> mod 23), ..., (N mod 26) to all again be zero. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Why would it matter if they're all zero or not? |
Archives