Conflict between Advice in LFS book and BLFS book

[amtor@…]

In lfs book (all recent versions including the latest test version), it states the following when discussing using the ext3 file system:

"When using a journalling file system, the 1 1 at the end of the line should be replaced with 0 0 because such a partition does not need to be dumped or checked"

(See ​http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/6.1.1-pre2/chapter08/fstab.html).

However, in the latest stable version of the BLFS book (v 6.1), it states:

"Edit your /etc/fstab. For each partition that you want to convert into ext3, edit the entry so that it looks similar to the following line.

/dev/hd[XX] /mnt_point ext3 defaults 1 1

In the above line, replace /dev/hd[XX] by the partition (e.g., /dev/hda2), /mnt_point by the mount point (e.g., /home). The 1 in the last field ensures that the partition will be checked for consistency during the boot process by the checkfs script as recommended by the maintainer."

(See ​http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/postlfs/filesystems.html )

What should it be? For ext3, should the last two digits be 1 1 in the fstab file or should it be 0 0?

In my view, we should be saying the same thing in LFS and BLFS.

Rob

[Matthew Burgess]

"It is also important to note that using a journalling filesystem does not entirely obsolete the use of filesystem checking programs (fsck). Hardware and software errors that corrupt random blocks in the filesystem are not generally recoverable with the transaction log." - ​http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue68/dellomodarme.html

Therefore, it would seem sensible to just remove that paragraph from the book.

[amtor@…]

(In reply to comment #1)

"It is also important to note that using a journalling filesystem does not entirely obsolete the use of filesystem checking programs (fsck). Hardware and software errors that corrupt random blocks in the filesystem are not generally recoverable with the transaction log." - ​http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue68/dellomodarme.html

Therefore, it would seem sensible to just remove that paragraph from the book.

(In reply to comment #1)

"It is also important to note that using a journalling filesystem does not entirely obsolete the use of filesystem checking programs (fsck). Hardware and software errors that corrupt random blocks in the filesystem are not generally recoverable with the transaction log." - ​http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue68/dellomodarme.html

Therefore, it would seem sensible to just remove that paragraph from the book.

I agree. Since LFS only deals with ext2 and BLFS deals with all the other options, it is probably best to stick to only ext2 in the LFS book. But LFS can refer readers to the BLFS book for other filesystems like ext3, reiserfs etc.

Rob