Re: "Forever" fsck?

John Thompson wrote:

On 2006-09-20, joseph2k <quiettechblue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 07:38:23 +0000, joseph2k wrote:

I personally am in favor of reformatting the partition to say NTFS then
back to EXT3. After running smartmontools of course.

I understand the benefit (and cost) of a reformat. But why "through"
NTFS (or anything else other than ext3)?

Precisely, something very different than ext3. Then when you reformat
back
the reformatting is 100% real; no shortcuts. I have had this make all
the difference.

Why not just "vfat" then? Less filesystem cruft to create if you're just
going to blow it away again right away.


I have found that the characteristic distribution of vfat cruft does not
always wipe the areas needed, whereas ntfs just seems to work better for
this task. YMMV

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
--Schiller
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Forever" fsck?
    ... I understand the benefit of a reformat. ... NTFS (or anything else other than ext3)? ... clears the partition, it gives the IDE smarts a chance to remap iffy ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: "Forever" fsck?
    ... I understand the benefit of a reformat. ... NTFS (or anything else other than ext3)? ... Less filesystem cruft to create if you're just ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: "Forever" fsck?
    ... back to EXT3. ... I understand the benefit (and cost) of a reformat. ... But why "through" NTFS ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: "Forever" fsck?
    ... back to EXT3. ... I understand the benefit (and cost) of a reformat. ... But why "through" NTFS ...
    (comp.os.linux.hardware)
  • Re: Ubuntu has corrupted my file !
    ... AFAIK only non-journalling file systems impose this mandatory fsck ... Why not use ext3 ... and reformat with filesystem that supports journalling. ...
    (Ubuntu)