A little while ago there was a discussion here about fsck running at
boot,
and the program AutoFsck. The author of AutoFsck just contacted me and
asked
me what his next step should be. I don't have any official standing in
the
Ubuntu dev community, so I'm just going to forward his message out
here
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=)
-- Fernando wrote:
Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on
your server.
Yes, indeed this will do the trick. But it requires knowledge of some
quite arcane utilities -- not usually
Couldnt fsck be run periodically in read-only mode during normal
operation (ie. while the disks are mounted), and if an error is detected
ask for a restart so fsck will be run during boot-up?
I am not aware of how fsck operates, so this may not be possible.
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:40 -0600,
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:40:25AM -0600, HggdH wrote:
I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks
are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such
checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also.
You're right - a deeper analysis is needed.
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:03 -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at
least one official blueprint:
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec
You can try
Autofsck does look like the way to go. Especially nice would be the option
to run a manual fsck, although that might already be an option ('a test can
be run' or is that something else?). I'm definitely in favour of this.
On Dec 4, 2007 11:50 AM, Dane Mutters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue,
On Monday 22 October 2007 01:51:03 Dane Mutters wrote:
I think that there is an occasional need to check the file system for
errors, but I think that it might work better as an optional, but
highly recommended thing.
Here's another case in point:
I have been working to set up an
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=)
-- Fernando wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 01:51:03 Dane Mutters wrote:
I think that there is an occasional need to check the file system for
errors, but I think that it might work better as an optional, but
highly
I'm going to add an anecdote to this thread why running fsck (at least in
textmode) at startup is bad.
Some good friends of mine use ubuntu on their HTPC. The connected HDTV can't
display the text mode under which the fsck runs, this results in a blue
screen during the whole operation. As these
I think that there is an occasional need to check the file system for
errors, but I think that it might work better as an optional, but
highly recommended thing.
Here's another case in point:
I have been working to set up an Ubuntu-based Asterisk phone server at
my workplace. For this
Onno Benschop wrote:
I am subscribed to the list, there is no need to send this to me directly.
Fair enough. I will remove you for now, but if you wish to not get such
replies regularly, you should set your Reply-To: header to point to the
mailing list.
I have personal experience where a
Onno Benschop wrote:
My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check
that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a
file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a
useful tool that needs to run regularly and every 30 mounts is
On 17/10/07 01:33, Phillip Susi wrote:
Onno Benschop wrote:
My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check
that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a
file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a
useful tool that needs
How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly unmounted the
last time it was online? (crash, power fail)
Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be adequate.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 12:02 +0200, mike corn wrote:
How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly
unmounted the last time it was online? (crash, power fail)
Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be
adequate.
For this to be true, you need another
On 10/10/2007, Christof Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to
abort the scan.
Me too. This whole fsck business is a really ugly hole in the Ubuntu
experience; first the fact that it can't be aborted, and secondly the
fact that it
On 10/10/2007 Christof Krüger wrote:
However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to
abort the scan. This also implies that the user is being informed on the
splash screen first and that he knows what is actually about to happen.
Problem is that users will just skip the
A partial check doesn't make sense with the current fsck tools AFAIK. We
should do a full filesystem check if anything, and if a user decides to abort
it, it's his choice.
There should be a graphical or otherwise easily accessible way of re-touching
the /forcefsck flag so that users can choose
John Dong wrote:
I agree with everyone who says that the current fsck experience is a blemish
to Ubuntu's general user-friendliness, and also that we should not be entirely
removing the regular fsck as it catches hardware irregularities and potential
software bugs with ext3.
When was the last
I completely like the LVM idea, as I was saying on IRC a bit ago, that
would really be an elegant system. LVM up root, and whatever other
chosen disks, and safely check that in the background (possibly a nice
notification icon even?) and pop up a ping box when an error is found
(the level of
The main roadblock in my mind is that few people use LVM as the main installer
doesn't support it.
Also, I have no idea how sane this idea is in terms of the abilities of ext3.
It's an interesting solution but probably too insane to ship in a distro.
Something like autofsck is easier/less risky
On 11/10/07 02:36, Phillip Susi wrote:
When was the last time you had a fsck find and fix errors? I have two
machines that have been running reiserfs for 2 years now and have never
had to fsck, and on the rare occasion that I am bored and feel like
forcing one, nothing wrong is found.
Jan Claeys wrote:
The main reason (IMO) why defrag is not useful (anymore) is that for
ages there hasn't been any (guaranteed) correlation between hardware
order and software order of sectors on a disk. Defragmenting disks
might actually fragment them more on a fysical level, and thus cause
Op maandag 08-10-2007 om 13:16 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
But I think a similar API could be used to mark move bad sectors or
lost sectors, and that's more related to this discussion...
As I said, there is no need to make such an effort because ext
Op woensdag 03-10-2007 om 15:35 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
About doing live fsck defrag on a rw filesystem, IIRC Windows NT has
a system API for doing e.g. atomic swap 2 sectors operations; does
'linux', or any of the filesystem drivers for it, support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The ext4 file system seems to be addressing some of these issues, by allowing
online defragmentation and introducing a
much faster e2fsck. Details at
https://ols2006.108.redhat.com/2007/Reprints/mathur-Reprint.pdf
There was a tray applet that
Jan Claeys wrote:
I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware
defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The
HDD firmware does internal bad block detection replacement (using
spare blocks on the disk reserved for that purpose). So if you can
Op dinsdag 02-10-2007 om 13:56 uur [tijdzone -0400], schreef Phillip
Susi:
Jan Claeys wrote:
I'm not an Ubuntu developer, but if 'badblocks' looks for hardware
defects, it's mostly useless on most hard disks in use these days. The
HDD firmware does internal bad block detection replacement
On 10/1/07, Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am 01.10.2007 um 00:16 schrieb Anthony Yarusso:
How would it work in the background after your drives are mounted?
Did you ever use WinXP and run chkdsk from the command line? It warns
you that it can't *correct* errors (a reboot is needed
On 10/1/07, Luke Yelavich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their
filesystem
regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due
to system activity
etc, and they loose their data? I'd be thinking that
On 10/1/07, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/1/07, Luke Yelavich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what happens when users install a distro that either doesn't check their
filesystem
regularly, or attempts to check in background, which can't be completed due
to system
Waldemar Kornewald wrote the following on 01.10.2007 00:08
-snip-
If you want fsck then you should be able to turn it on, but please
don't assume that anyone else wants to have fsck enabled, by default.
As many people have reported, it takes awfully long to boot with fsck
and that's
On Mon, 2007-10-01 at 20:13 +0200, Thilo Six wrote:
There are two parts of computer users.
The first one do backups, and second ones never had a harddisc
failure.
Here's a variation on your theme. There are three types of people in the
world:
Those who don't do backups.
Those who do backups.
Sitsofe Wheeler wrote the following on 01.10.2007 21:10
-snip-
Here's a variation on your theme. There are three types of people in the
world:
Those who don't do backups.
Those who do backups.
-snip-
you seem to miss the important point
second ones never had a harddisc failure.
fsck
Reordering this mail to put the important topic on top.
On 9/28/07, Markus Hitter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, in sleep-to-disk mode you can even pull the power plug without
enforcing booting.
Yep, sleep-to-disk is the best mode if you care about your
environment, but if you want to suggest
On 27/09/2007, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output
into a pseudo-window on the boot screen (so that it doesn't look like
the whole thing crashed to command line) might be nice, e.g.:
u b u n t u
On 30/09/2007, Martin Peeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Conrad Knauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output
into a pseudo-window on the boot screen (so that it doesn't look like
the whole thing crashed to command line)
Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
Are there any alternatives? Here are two examples:
one alternative is fsck at shut down.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck
sam tygier
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:46 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
I once reported a bug about this, but Justin Wray suggested that I
discuss this on a mailing list, first.
Curious. I filed a bug about disabling periodic fscks (as most other
operating system like Windows 95 and above along with OSX
Sitsofe Wheeler wrote the following on 30.09.2007 19:14
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:46 +0200, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
I once reported a bug about this, but Justin Wray suggested that I
discuss this on a mailing list, first.
Curious. I filed a bug about disabling periodic fscks (as most other
On 9/30/07, Thilo Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
umount the partition and *then* run:
$ sudo tune2fs -c 0 -i 1m /dev/hdXY
that will reduce fsck period to once a month, regarless of bootcount.
But do that on your on.
Distribution wide i can´t think off any good reason to disable fsck at all.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
On 9/30/07, Thilo Six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
umount the partition and *then* run:
$ sudo tune2fs -c 0 -i 1m /dev/hdXY
that will reduce fsck period to once a month, regarless of bootcount.
But do that on your on.
2007/9/27, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
--
Are there any alternatives? Here are two examples:
Use SMART (AFAIK, Vista does that).
SMART is hardware- and not filesystem dependent.
Besides, the implementation of SMART differs wildly from each hard-drive
manufacturer.
Take
On 9/27/07, Erik Andrén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2007/9/27, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
...
--
Are there any alternatives? Here are two examples:
Use SMART (AFAIK, Vista does that).
SMART is hardware- and not filesystem dependent.
Besides, the implementation of SMART
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:03:32PM EST, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
Isn't a hardware defect the main reason a file system can be corrupted
without a crash? There can be serious FS bugs, but aren't those very
rare, anyway? What else could lead to FS
On 9/27/07, Luke Yelavich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:03:32PM EST, Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
Isn't a hardware defect the main reason a file system can be corrupted
without a crash? There can be serious FS bugs, but aren't those very
rare, anyway? What else could lead
hi,
Am Donnerstag, den 27.09.2007, 10:49 +0200 schrieb Waldemar Kornewald:
What about my alternative suggestion? It would still run fsck, but at
the same time be less annoying or not disturbing at all.
not wsure if you ever ran fsck manually, but you have to unmount the
partition you check or at
Hi,
On 9/27/07, Oliver Grawert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 27.09.2007, 10:49 +0200 schrieb Waldemar Kornewald:
What about my alternative suggestion? It would still run fsck, but at
the same time be less annoying or not disturbing at all.
not wsure if you ever ran fsck
On 27/09/2007 Oliver Grawert wrote:
What about my alternative suggestion? It would still run fsck, but at
the same time be less annoying or not disturbing at all.
not wsure if you ever ran fsck manually, but you have to unmount the
partition you check or at least mount it readonly ...
so
On 9/27/07, Waldemar Kornewald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the current behavior which draws users away (friends
who saw fsck on my laptop called Linux stupid and asked me why I don't
just use Windows).
As a temporary cosmetic work-around, something like forcing the output
into a pseudo-window on
I'd just like to point out that it seems to take 40 minutes to scan a
500 GB volume!
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 11:05 +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote:
On 27/09/2007 Oliver Grawert wrote:
What about my alternative suggestion? It would still run fsck, but at
the same time be less annoying or not
* [Waldemar Kornewald]
Isn't a hardware defect the main reason a file system can be corrupted
without a crash? There can be serious FS bugs, but aren't those very
rare, anyway? What else could lead to FS corruption?
SMART only catches hard drive defects. Some other things that (I think
more
And how about using ReiserFS by default, or any other journaled
filesystem that doesn't require fsck to run regularly? I'm using
reiser3, and I hadn't noticed that fsck was run by default on startup
until a friend of mine installed Ubuntu with standard settings (i.e.
with ext3).
From Wikipedia:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:17:43 -0400 Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
ReiserFS is effectively unmaintained. I've switched from ReiserFS to
Ext3 for
my installs too. While it works well now, bitrot seems inevitable.
Scott K
Note: This has nothing to do with
Am 27.09.2007 um 22:17 schrieb Phillip Susi:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
ReiserFS is effectively unmaintained. I've switched from ReiserFS
to Ext3 for
my installs too. While it works well now, bitrot seems inevitable.
Scott K
Note: This has nothing to do with an legal issues the
Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
Why did the Ubuntu developers choose that particular behavior (fsck
every 21st or 30th boot), anyway? IMHO, a much more accurate
measurement would be: how much time has the FS spent in the mounted
state since the last FS check?
Because that is how ext has been since
We are strongly being advised NOT to leave things on standby here as
it's bad for the environment.
Caroline
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 23:46 +0200, Markus Hitter wrote:
Am 27.09.2007 um 22:17 schrieb Phillip Susi:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
ReiserFS is effectively unmaintained. I've switched from
Am 28.09.2007 um 00:40 schrieb Caroline Ford:
We are strongly being advised NOT to leave things on standby here as
it's bad for the environment.
I'm pretty sure it takes less energy to have a modern computer in
standby for a week or two than to boot the machine and to restore all
the
58 matches
Mail list logo
