| 1 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/17/2012 12:44 AM, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Question. A file system, /usr for example, is mounted read only. The |
| 5 |
>> system crashes for whatever reason such as a power failure. Since it is |
| 6 |
>> mounted read only, would there be a larger or smaller risk of corrupted |
| 7 |
>> data on that partition? From what I understand, the possible corruption |
| 8 |
>> is from files not being written to the drive but since it is mounted |
| 9 |
>> read only, then that removes that possibility. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Just checking on a thought here. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> Power failure? Your data is fine. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> But "whatever reason?" Think of the possibilities! |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> * The Earth stops rotating and your hard drive is flung at 67,000 |
| 18 |
> miles per hour directly into the sun. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> * Today is backwards day, and your ones and zeros have been switched. |
| 21 |
> Fsck should be able to handle this, somebody file a bug. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> * The system never really existed, it was all in your imagination. |
| 24 |
> Fade to credits. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
So, since I have /usr separate from the rest, I could mount it read only |
| 29 |
and reduce the chance of corruption if say my UPS failed? I already do |
| 30 |
this for /boot. Interesting. Very interesting indeed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If the other issues happen, computers is likely the least of our |
| 33 |
problems. ;-) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives