> > ext3 doesn't really "solve" this, but it does step around it: if you
> > mount a filesystem which needs recovery as readonly, then it will
> > warn you that it is enabling write access to the device temporarily
> > and will perform the recovery. The filesystem retains full ROFS
> > protection, but the device does get written to. Ext3 does a device
> > check to make sure that the block device is writable before it
> > attempts to do this, and if it is not, it will abort the mount
> > entirely: you can't mount ext3 on readonly media if recovery is
> > needed.
> > --Stephen
> Just to report on where XFS is in all of this, it will fail a read only
> mount request if it determines recovery needs to be run. We do have
> a norecovery mount option - but this is really for internal use only,
> I would not recommend using it.
How does a readonly filesystem become inconsistent?
(esp: "how does ext3 on readonly media" become inconsistent?)
The obvious answer is "well, it *wasn't* readonly when it
If that's the case, then why do you care? Naively, I wouldn't
think this is a big deal. Why am I wrong?