Re: removing an ext2fs file forces disk activity

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Jeroen Dekkers <jeroen@dekkers.cx> writes:

> Sorry for my stupidity, but I don't see why fsck can't remove the
> corrupted part and replace it with some sane stuff. It knows how the
> filesystem should look like, so it can change it so that it will look
> like that. Could you please explain why that isn't the case?

In the normal case--with properly ordered writes, you can write a fsck
which will guarantee a clean-up without loss of data.

If you drop the ordering guarantees, then you can no longer have an
automatic fsck which can clean up without loss of data.  And the lost
data could be *anything* in these kinds of cases.

> That could be because the power company isn't a private company (yet)
> and still state-owned which results in a better service. I guess we
> have a power failure about once a year. And for that, they invented
> UPS. :-)

Actually, in Los Angeles, it is publicly owned.