From: nospam@needed.invalid   
      
   On Sun, 2/15/2026 3:23 PM, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 06:37:31 -0500, Paul wrote:   
   >   
   >> That's a failure to do the safety checks first (FSCK before backup)   
   >> ...   
   >   
   > Not sure why that would be necessary, unless you’re doing low-level   
   > access to the volume and bypassing the filesystem code in the kernel.   
   >   
   > Otherwise you can rely on the kernel to ensure the filesystem is fit   
   > to access -- that is the authoritative implementation of the   
   > filesystem-access code, after all.   
   >   
      
   Do you remember the old SunOS OS and the file system there ?   
   That used to regularly tip over.   
      
   And it used to take forever to start, and read the filesystem   
   and make sure it would work.   
      
   We had two guys who went on a SunOS driver designer course,   
   and while we did not get a demo of their coding skills later   
   to look at, the two of them were excellent at repairing   
   various broken linkages in the filesystem.   
      
   That's the part I remember about the old days, where the OS   
   didn't particularly do a good job handling filesystems,   
   and you could be regularly faced with brokenness and no   
   forward progress. It was even fun watching them work,   
   as one would say "do you think it is this problem?",   
   and they would be working through a mental flowchart, and   
   between the two of them, they *always* tipped the filesystem   
   upright. My fear was, that if only one of our guys was   
   available, this scheme would not work, without a person   
   to bounce ideas off.   
      
   You couldn't always trust FSCK, and giving permission to   
   "do something" could trash it.   
      
      Paul   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)