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, HggdH wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +0000, (=?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 what the casual user has --, and > bypasses the basic issues: > > 1. fsck takes an inordinate long time for large filesystems; > > We distribute Ubuntu with the installation by default in one single > monolithic filesystem (and most other distributions will do the same). > Of old this was no biggie, since the disks were (relatively) small. But, > nowadays, we usually get harddrives in excess of 100G. > > Very few of us (based on my experience) will partition the HD. I have > had issues on Ubuntu on this (I *do* run many partitions), with software > updates putting critical system utilities in /usr/[s]bin instead > of /[s]bin -- which causes some rather bad errors on boot (/usr is a > mount point on my systems) > > 2. a generic ~30 mounts per check is too short an interval. > > Although this is probably good enough for desktop systems, it breaks > fast on laptops. I, for example, boot my laptop at least twice a day -- > so, on my personal case, I will have a forced check in (usually) less > than 2 weeks time. If I were to be running a single fs, it would take > about 25 minutes for it to complete. Fortunately for me, since I broke > my install in many filesystems, not all of them get done at the same > time. > > [as an example, I have seem my wife get out of her laptop in disgust > when such a check started. And, of course, blast me for that :-)] > > 3. taking out the check is potentially dangerous in the long run. > > A direct question here is: how long can such a check be postponed? This > question has not yet been answered, and we have people either disabling > (via tune2fs or friends), or putting in some arbritary values. > > What we need is some consensus on how to deal with it. > > -x-x-x-x-x-x- > > 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. > > Perhaps a way would be a routine to prompt the user for a check next > reboot, and be increasingly more vocal if the user keeps on postponing > the check: > > * This system has run for xxx (days|months|boots|whatever) > * without a FS check. Do you want this check performed > * next boot? > * > * [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] postpone for now > > And then the routine would set a flag to be read by something next boot. > > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss