I wonder why a fsck is forced after a file system got mounted x times. This implies that the act of mounting a FS is harmful in itself. I can hardly believe this. Neither can I believe that leaving my computer switched off for a prolonged period of time is that damaging to its FS. Maybe running a FS bears the potential of errors being introduced or not unmounting it might damage it, even for journaling file systems. But then a fsck should be forced after a certain total running time or when mounts-unmounts > x. This x might be much smaller than the default 30 times of regular mounts, as might the total running time threshold be much lower than the normal timeout.
But then I'm not a file system expert so please enlighten me someone why these primitive changes (adding up the run times and decreasing the mount counter right before umounting) are not done and the system we all know and hate is used instead.
Many thanks in advance,
PS: I hope this is the right sub-forum to post this in. I'm a little bit confused by the structure.