• BCsven@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Its a ‘failsafe’ , like if part of the system depends on that drive mounting then if it fails then don’t continue. Not the expected default, but probably made sense at some point. Like if brakes are broken don’t allow starting truck, type failsafe.

    • wormer@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yea like the default is smart? How is it supposed to know if that’s critical or not at that point? The alternative is for it to silently fail and wait for something else to break instead of failing gracefully? I feel like I’m growing more and more petty and matching the language of systemd haters but like just think about it for a few minutes???

      • BCsven@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Edit: just saw your other comment, so this may not apply to you now…Not that the default is smart, but the default has been set to fail a boot if parts are missing. Imagine a rocket launch system check, is temperature system online, no, fail and abort. While as users – for convenience–we want the system to boot even though a drive went offline, that may not be best default for induatrial applications. Or where another system relylies on first one to be up and coherent. So we have to use the nofail option, to contine the boot on missing drive.