Am Montag, den 13.03.2006, 19:34 -0500 schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:25:05PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > a missing /lost+found should only result in a warning, not an error. If > > the admin removes the file, he probably knows what he's doing and does > > not want the e2fsck to halt just because of that. > > It's a bad idea to remove lost+found; when you need it to recover from > a corrupted filesystem, it's safer to have the directory inode and > blocks preallocated ahead of time.
I guess this has been discussed somewhere else already, but I still wonder what one should do when the files in a directory are somehow used as information (e.g., backup every host for which there is a direcory named after the hose. darn, our backup fails every night because lost +found is not reachable). Slightly constructed example, but we should provide the user with an alternative. Might be it possible to allow for an alternative name of .lost+found? Would that make sense? And what would need to be changed for that, besides e2fsck? Thanks for your quick reply, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
