Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
Andrei POPESCU writes: > > Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux > because of the wrong impression that it is without cost. > > [1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the desired > changes don't go against the Social Contract, etc. > > Kind regards, > Andrei Thank you Andrei, that was exactly my point. Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86oaqjides@gaheris.avalon.lan
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/31/2014 1:34 PM, Mike McGinn wrote: > > > On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:45:53 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote: > >> > Jerry Stuckle writes: > >> >> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > >> >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life > >> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or > >> interested) in spending their life working on Linux. > >> >>> > >> >>> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people > >> >>> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much > everyone > >> >>> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. > >> >> > >> >> That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? > >> > > >> > Simply mirroring the question is not an answer. > >> > > >> > Don is right; what have you done for Debian that they should be obliged > >> > to maintain the distro in ways you want? > >> > > >> > If you want something, the answer is always the same in Free Software: > >> > either do the work yourself or pay for it. No-one is obliged to do > >> > things to your liking without some consideration coming from your end. > >> > > >> > Mart > >> > >> Mart, > >> > >> I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I > >> want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients > >> are changing distributions. Period. > >> > >> It's you and others who have demanded people spend money they don't have. > >> > >> If you want them to help Debian, then are you going to pay for it to > >> happen? If not, who (besides my clients) is going to pay? > >> > >> When you can answer that, I can answer your question. > >> > >> Jerry > > > > This is the problem with Linux, folks use it to make money and feel no > obligation to contribute to it. Even if they do not contribute > development time, they could budget an annual donation to the Linux > Foundation, Debian or whatever distribution they use. > > > > Linux developers eat too. They would be paying a license fee if they > were using MS or a commercial Unix. > > > > Just my thoughts. > > > > Mike > > > > -- > > Mike McGinn KD2CNU > > Be happy that brainfarts don't smell. > > No electrons were harmed in sending this message, some were inconvenienced. > > ** Registered Linux User 377849 > > > Mike, they know Linux developers need to eat, also. My clients use Linux for a number of reasons, including stability, small footprint and ability to load a bare-bones system (i.e. no GUI, no unwanted background processes, etc.). At the same time, they have a budget they must stay within, and there is no money in that budget to hire programmers other than for their unique needs. They don't set the budget - that comes from higher up in the corporation. And those people have to set budgets based on expected corporate income. Now I don't know if they donate to the Linux Foundation or not - and it's none of my business. All I know is when they need new work done, it's pretty much always a negotiation between what I want for the work and what they are able to pay. And even if they had hired people to work on Debian, it would have made no difference. The TC made their decision, and would not have asked my clients for input. So the change would have to be made, anyway. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a45260.90...@gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/31/2014 1:10 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I >> want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients >> are changing distributions. Period. > > I think the point some are trying to make is that Debian's direction can > be influenced[1], but this requires involvement. It might also be > cheaper in the long term than distro-hopping every time the distribution > in use takes an unwanted turn. > > Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux > because of the wrong impression that it is without cost. > > [1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the desired > changes don't go against the Social Contract, etc. > > Kind regards, > Andrei > Andrei, as I've said - these companies don't have the time or money to contribute to Debian. Not that it would have made any difference - the TC did not consult them when making their decision, and would not have consulted them even if my clients had been contributing. Andrei, I follow your advice here and appreciate it a lot. I've learned a lot from you. And you can contribute all you want. But don't expect everyone else to have the skills or means to do so. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a44ff0.70...@gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 1/01/2015 5:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the >> way I want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so >> my clients are changing distributions. Period. > > I think the point some are trying to make is that Debian's > direction can be influenced[1], but this requires involvement. It > might also be cheaper in the long term than distro-hopping every > time the distribution in use takes an unwanted turn. > > Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux > because of the wrong impression that it is without cost. > > [1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the > desired changes don't go against the Social Contract, etc. Unfortunately for me, the direction of Linux is a problem, I see no future in continuing with Linux when it is possible to get the /right/ result for myself and my clients by moving away from Linux to, most likely, a BSD flavour [FreeBSD is the most likely at this stage]. The writing is on the wall for Linux as far as I am concerned. It's not just Debian, even though Debian [in my world view at least] has been a major driving force in the Linux world -- going with systemd now and all that will follow due to this decision, it's not rosy, not rosy at all. Spending monies or time trying to change the situation will only delay the inevitable and such monies and time would be wasted in my view. A. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iF4EAREIAAYFAlSkSboACgkQqBZry7fv4vuiSgEAvMP5PTHdchdEmkIOE/9VeQy2 QWHjC7PjDk2rT6mm6FsA/jhL50I9gSV+90y6JdCSieaqeaaV1JmjvEcE3oeICAbn =V9DB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a449bc.4070...@affinityvision.com.au
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 31 December 2014 18:10:00 GMT+00:00, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I >> want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients >> are changing distributions. Period. > >I think the point some are trying to make is that Debian's direction >can >be influenced[1], but this requires involvement. It might also be >cheaper in the long term than distro-hopping every time the >distribution >in use takes an unwanted turn. > >Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux >because of the wrong impression that it is without cost. > >[1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the >desired >changes don't go against the Social Contract, etc. > >Kind regards, >Andrei >-- >http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser >Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: >http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic >http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt This is very interesting, I've always viewed Linux as 'the peoples' choice for an OS but watching these responses has made me think/realise that it's not really. Its development is driven by the biggest financial contributors - which will always be the corps. Due to it's open nature it is perhaps more susceptible to abuse/conflict in this area too. I guess I've been a little naive to that till this whole sysd thing. -- Simon
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 09:45:53 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle writes: > >> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life > outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or > interested) in spending their life working on Linux. > >>> > >>> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people > >>> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone > >>> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. > >> > >> That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? > > > > Simply mirroring the question is not an answer. > > > > Don is right; what have you done for Debian that they should be obliged > > to maintain the distro in ways you want? > > > > If you want something, the answer is always the same in Free Software: > > either do the work yourself or pay for it. No-one is obliged to do > > things to your liking without some consideration coming from your end. > > > > Mart > > Mart, > > I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I > want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients > are changing distributions. Period. > > It's you and others who have demanded people spend money they don't have. > > If you want them to help Debian, then are you going to pay for it to > happen? If not, who (besides my clients) is going to pay? > > When you can answer that, I can answer your question. > > Jerry This is the problem with Linux, folks use it to make money and feel no obligation to contribute to it. Even if they do not contribute development time, they could budget an annual donation to the Linux Foundation, Debian or whatever distribution they use. Linux developers eat too. They would be paying a license fee if they were using MS or a commercial Unix. Just my thoughts. Mike -- Mike McGinn KD2CNU Be happy that brainfarts don't smell. No electrons were harmed in sending this message, some were inconvenienced. ** Registered Linux User 377849
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On Mi, 31 dec 14, 09:45:53, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I > want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients > are changing distributions. Period. I think the point some are trying to make is that Debian's direction can be influenced[1], but this requires involvement. It might also be cheaper in the long term than distro-hopping every time the distribution in use takes an unwanted turn. Of course, this will not fare well with people that chose GNU/Linux because of the wrong impression that it is without cost. [1] possibly even more so than other distributions, provided the desired changes don't go against the Social Contract, etc. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/31/2014 4:20 AM, Mart van de Wege wrote: > Jerry Stuckle writes: > >> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or interested) in spending their life working on Linux. >>> >>> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people >>> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone >>> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. >>> >> >> That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? >> > Simply mirroring the question is not an answer. > > Don is right; what have you done for Debian that they should be obliged > to maintain the distro in ways you want? > > If you want something, the answer is always the same in Free Software: > either do the work yourself or pay for it. No-one is obliged to do > things to your liking without some consideration coming from your end. > > Mart > Mart, I've never said anyone should be obliged to maintain Debian the way I want. I said the way they are going is not acceptable, so my clients are changing distributions. Period. It's you and others who have demanded people spend money they don't have. If you want them to help Debian, then are you going to pay for it to happen? If not, who (besides my clients) is going to pay? When you can answer that, I can answer your question. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a40c21.7020...@gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
Jerry Stuckle writes: > On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life >>> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or >>> interested) in spending their life working on Linux. >> >> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people >> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone >> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. >> > > That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? > Simply mirroring the question is not an answer. Don is right; what have you done for Debian that they should be obliged to maintain the distro in ways you want? If you want something, the answer is always the same in Free Software: either do the work yourself or pay for it. No-one is obliged to do things to your liking without some consideration coming from your end. Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/861tngjhvi@gaheris.avalon.lan
Re: Fwd: Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/30/2014 10:07 PM, William Unruh wrote: >> >> On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or interested) in spending their life working on Linux. >>> >>> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people >>> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone >>> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. >>> >> >> That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? > > They apparently pay you. > Who pays the hardware people who design the boards/etc? > Yes, they pay me because the device drivers are custom (and proprietary). Nothing exists in public or other private hands. And they have EE's who design the electronics. But that is a different division. You seem to think money is unending. It isn't, believe me. They have budgets, and must stay within them. There is no money available to hire consultants to maintain a distro. Of course, there's another option (and only one other one). The company could go out of business. Then the problem would go away. >> >> My clients are not IT folks. They don't need Debian per say - they DO >> need Linux. And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for >> software implementations. > > Fair enough, but then if it is critical to their business, they will > have to pay. > You don't get it, do you. THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY! > ... >> >> Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies. They are >> manufacturers of equipment. Right now, Debian just happens to be the > > But now adays, software it the largest part of an equipment business. To > say they do not have software people is to say they do not have a > business. > Maybe YOUR businesses. Not all, by any means. And in these companies, software is only a very SMALL part of their business. Even the electronics is a small part of the business. The money is in the equipment being controlled. >> distribution they are using. Yes, they have a couple of people familiar >> with Linux administration, but that's about it. And these administering >> Linux is only a very small part of their job. That's why they hire >> people like me to write specific device drivers and other software. But >> they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS. > > But they need to adapt the software for their use. > That is a critical part of their business. In fact it is the part that > sets them apart from all their competitors. Hardware is easy these days. > Electronic hardware is easy. But that isn't these company's business. That what you guys don't understand. Consider an automobile. It has a computer to control the car. But that computer is maybe a $500 part in a $35K machine. Sure, new cars NEED that computer. But it is one of the least important parts of the car. The engine, body, interior, handling and a couple of dozen other things are much more important to the buyer. And that's where the money goes. The computer is the minimum necessary to do the job. Although my clients are not automobile manufacturers, the comparison applies. >> >> They could use pretty much any distro. They liked Debian because of its >> stability. But they don't NEED Debian. If they wanted to spend lots of >> time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware. > > Whether Debian is the best choice for them is of course something they > will have to decide. It is modular, stable, conservative, old > fashioned,... > > ??? > > And its continued stability is seriously being questions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a372f9.4060...@gmail.com
Fwd: Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
> >On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life >>> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or >>> interested) in spending their life working on Linux. >> >> If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people >> to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone >> who is serious about using Debian in production does this. >> > >That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? They apparently pay you. Who pays the hardware people who design the boards/etc? > >My clients are not IT folks. They don't need Debian per say - they DO >need Linux. And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for >software implementations. Fair enough, but then if it is critical to their business, they will have to pay. ... > >Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies. They are >manufacturers of equipment. Right now, Debian just happens to be the But now adays, software it the largest part of an equipment business. To say they do not have software people is to say they do not have a business. >distribution they are using. Yes, they have a couple of people familiar >with Linux administration, but that's about it. And these administering >Linux is only a very small part of their job. That's why they hire >people like me to write specific device drivers and other software. But >they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS. But they need to adapt the software for their use. That is a critical part of their business. In fact it is the part that sets them apart from all their competitors. Hardware is easy these days. > >They could use pretty much any distro. They liked Debian because of its >stability. But they don't NEED Debian. If they wanted to spend lots of >time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware. Whether Debian is the best choice for them is of course something they will have to decide. It is modular, stable, conservative, old fashioned,... ??? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141231030747.c153710f...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life >> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or >> interested) in spending their life working on Linux. > > If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people > to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone > who is serious about using Debian in production does this. > That's a great idea. Who's going to pay these people - you? My clients are not IT folks. They don't need Debian per say - they DO need Linux. And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for software implementations. > If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous > people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they > (or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund, > contact lea...@debian.org. > And you're going to pay those consultants, right? >> And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make >> the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time, >> than later when they find out they have to switch quickly. > > If they have already decided to switch, then they should start > contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to. > And you're going to pay for these consultants? Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies. They are manufacturers of equipment. Right now, Debian just happens to be the distribution they are using. Yes, they have a couple of people familiar with Linux administration, but that's about it. And these administering Linux is only a very small part of their job. That's why they hire people like me to write specific device drivers and other software. But they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS. They could use pretty much any distro. They liked Debian because of its stability. But they don't NEED Debian. If they wanted to spend lots of time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a357df.6030...@gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life >> outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or >> interested) in spending their life working on Linux. > > If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people > to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. I have to admit, this is a thought that has been on my mind lately. > Pretty much everyone > who is serious about using Debian in production does this. Unfortunately, I don't think that's exactly true, for some defintions of "serious". Lots of companies think they are serious about using Linux, but not feeding their profits back upstream. On the contrary, they tend to be trying to use the (imaginary, but much touted) cost differential as a competitive wedge, pushing down their profits and squeezing the market. Killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Not facing up to the freedom vs. zero (initial) cost dillemma. Not really serious even though they are seriously thinking they are serious. (Yeah, I'm sort of looking at myself in the mirror, as an individual. I don't contribute as much as I should because it has been too easy to get distracted, playing with all the zero initial cost stuff.) > If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous > people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they > (or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund, > contact lea...@debian.org. > >> And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make >> the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time, >> than later when they find out they have to switch quickly. > > If they have already decided to switch, then they should start > contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to. And I'm thinking that, if more of the people who think they are serious about FOSS had been taking the duties of freedom more seriously, the systemd debacle might have been avoided. (By making more work generalizing the several init approaches publically available, and by making the inits more interchangeable, more manageable by people who don't have time to learn shell scripting -- although managers scared of learning programming languages is yet another manifestation of the problem.) I'm moving to openbsd partly to make sure I start contributing. (Also because I see too many devs in the debian community who either don't want to learn programming or whose ideas about programming are diametrically opposed to what I think is my experience.) -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iP0EDsyHXVN2LGKQvbW+wv7Gjw_DtzkD8MU0O=4vb3...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life > outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or > interested) in spending their life working on Linux. If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone who is serious about using Debian in production does this. If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they (or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund, contact lea...@debian.org. > And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make > the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time, > than later when they find out they have to switch quickly. If they have already decided to switch, then they should start contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com unbeingdead isn't beingalive -- e.e. cummings "31" _73 Poems_ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141230224936.gb29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/30/2014 9:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now. >> They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will >> probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for >> production. > > If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just stay > with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider contributing > developer time (or your time) to the continued support of SysV in > jessie+1 (and beyond.) > > If they want to stick with wheezy for other reasons, they should help > make squeeze LTS a success so people are more likely to also contribute > to wheezy LTS when it is inevitably EOLed by the stable security team. > > If it's something else that bothers them, the way to influence Debian is > to do the work. > Don, that's a good, but impractical idea. The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or interested) in spending their life working on Linux. And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time, than later when they find out they have to switch quickly. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a30351.4040...@gmail.com
Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On 12/30/2014 at 09:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros >> now. They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It >> will probably take two years for them to get another distro ready >> for production. > > If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just > stay with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider > contributing developer time (or your time) to the continued support > of SysV in jessie+1 (and beyond.) Take care about what configuration to use in sticking with sysvinit in jessie, though. I run two main Debian systems; on one of them I've installed sysvinit-core+systemd-shim and removed systemd-the-package (and all reverse dependencies, of course), and on the other I've installed sysvinit-core+systemd-shim and left libpam-systemd (and all dependencies) in place - and I have seen behavior changes in at least the latter case. (I think I've seen some changes in both cases, but I've changed the installed-package configuration on the former machine since then, so I can't swear those changes are still present.) Just yesterday, I rebooted the computer with libpam-systemd present (and thus systemd-logind active) for the first time since the switch, and I've already noted two particular behavior changes which I find bothersome: * When I launch X from tty1 with 'startx', it now appears to run on tty1 itself instead of on the more traditional tty7 - which has the practical effect that it's no longer possible to kill X by shifting to tty1 and hitting Ctrl-C, which is an emergency break-out measure I've found necessary or at least convenient in the past. There are probably ways to reconfigure things to prevent this behavior change (I think I've seen such mentioned here on-list in the past), but that is the behavior which seems to result from the default configuration. * When I boot to the text console to log in, there are messages from logind printed prior to login which clutter the console (and step all over the actual login prompt), and more printed after hitting Enter on the password prompt to actually log in. If there are ways to prevent this behavior change without muting potentially-desirable (new) logging activity entirely, I'm not aware of them. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]
On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now. > They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will > probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for > production. If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just stay with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider contributing developer time (or your time) to the continued support of SysV in jessie+1 (and beyond.) If they want to stick with wheezy for other reasons, they should help make squeeze LTS a success so people are more likely to also contribute to wheezy LTS when it is inevitably EOLed by the stable security team. If it's something else that bothers them, the way to influence Debian is to do the work. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141230144546.gb11...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/30/2014 5:37 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks, >> depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure). > > Could you please show us where you've seen this? For the record, again, > from the e2fsprogs changelog: > Multiple times in on this mailing list. > > e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low > ... > * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace > extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file > system checks disabled. > ... > -- Theodore Y. Ts'o Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400 > > Of course, if you have filesystems created with earlier e2fsprogs you'll > still have the periodic checks enabled, but they are easy to disable > with tune2fs. > > Kind regards, > Andrei > This is the first time I've seen this fix. I've seen other means of using tune2fs, such as setting to a high number and resetting the count on each reboot. But I hadn't seen that it could be disabled this way. This fixes my immediate problem. But as I've said before - there are other reasons my clients don't like the way Debian is going, and the decision has already been made to look at another distro. And I have to be developing on the same distros they are using. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a2b241.5030...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Lu, 29 dec 14, 18:32:28, Marc Auslander wrote: > Long ago, I decided that inconvenient fsck's were not what I > needed. And that cancelling them was not an option - I run quasi > headless so there's no way. > > So - I use tune2fs to set a ridiculous reboot count for automatic > fsck. Just for the archives, as per tune2fs(8), one can disable the mount count check by setting the value to 0 or -1. [snip implementation of monthly forced check via cron] Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks, > depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure). Could you please show us where you've seen this? For the record, again, from the e2fsprogs changelog: e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low ... * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file system checks disabled. ... -- Theodore Y. Ts'o Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400 Of course, if you have filesystems created with earlier e2fsprogs you'll still have the periodic checks enabled, but they are easy to disable with tune2fs. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 10:05 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I >>> get >>> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >>> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, >>> but >>> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to >>> complete. >> >> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy >> for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the > problem > :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >>> >>> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >>> >>> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, >>> is an >>> entirely different question. >>> >>> Lisi >>> >>> >> >> Lisi, >> >> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, >> I do >> appreciate people trying to help out. >> >> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not >> going to >> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >> every one has made the decision to switch yet. > > What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of > years?? I > haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I > have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a > Tbyte of > storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. > Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. > Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete > dist-upgrade to > Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients > without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know > better. > Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. > Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric > This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. >>> >>> There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. >>> When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO >>> not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it >>> is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as >>> the process is for your own good. >>> >> >> I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A >> PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a >> completely different story. >> >>> It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows >>> server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite >>> awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it >>> and suffered. I know I did. >>> >> >> It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to >> make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this >> project depends on my presentation being more successful than another >> consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of >> thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. >> >> Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? >> >>> But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process >>> half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so
Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get >>> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >>> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, >>> but >>> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. >> >> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy >> for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the > problem > :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >>> >>> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >>> >>> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, >>> is an >>> entirely different question. >>> >>> Lisi >>> >>> >> >> Lisi, >> >> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do >> appreciate people trying to help out. >> >> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to >> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >> every one has made the decision to switch yet. > > What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I > haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I > have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of > storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. > Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. > Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to > Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients > without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know > better. > Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. > Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric > This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. >>> >>> There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. >>> When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO >>> not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it >>> is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as >>> the process is for your own good. >>> >> >> I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A >> PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a >> completely different story. >> >>> It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows >>> server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite >>> awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it >>> and suffered. I know I did. >>> >> >> It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to >> make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this >> project depends on my presentation being more successful than another >> consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of >> thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. >> >> Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? >> >>> But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process >>> half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a >>> feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric >>> >>> >>> >> >> I can, and I have, wh
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an entirely different question. Lisi Lisi, While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do appreciate people trying to help out. And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not every one has made the decision to switch yet. What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know better. Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as the process is for your own good. I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a completely different story. It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it and suffered. I know I did. It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this project depends on my presentation being more successful than another consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time. Windows allows this, and terminates the defrag gracefully. That's one thing Windows has on Debian. Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does NOT mean it's ok for everyone else. Running ext4, the only time it has run fsck for me is when it had to. Otherwise I run it manually just to be sure. And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening. But it will probably not matter to me, anyway. My clients are looking for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this. And we're talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controll
Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get >>> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >>> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, >>> but >>> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. >> >> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy >> for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the > problem > :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >>> >>> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >>> >>> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, >>> is an >>> entirely different question. >>> >>> Lisi >>> >>> >> >> Lisi, >> >> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do >> appreciate people trying to help out. >> >> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to >> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >> every one has made the decision to switch yet. > > What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I > haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I > have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of > storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. > Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. > Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to > Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients > without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know > better. > Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. > Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric > This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. >>> >>> There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. >>> When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO >>> not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it >>> is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as >>> the process is for your own good. >>> >> >> I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A >> PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a >> completely different story. >> >>> It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows >>> server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite >>> awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it >>> and suffered. I know I did. >>> >> >> It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to >> make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this >> project depends on my presentation being more successful than another >> consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of >> thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. >> >> Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? >> >>> But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process >>> half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a >>> feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric >>> >>> >>> >> >> I can, and I have, wh
Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
>On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 >>> >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get >> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, >> but >> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy > for it. I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) >>> >>> Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really >>> solve the >>> core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) >>> instead >>> of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >> >> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >> >> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, >> is an >> entirely different question. >> >> Lisi >> >> > > Lisi, > > While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do > appreciate people trying to help out. > > And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to > happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm > looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not > every one has made the decision to switch yet. What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. >>> >>> Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of >>> my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they >>> are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not >>> something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time >>> before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same >>> software they are. >>> Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know better. >>> >>> Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is >>> the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. >>> It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it >>> will happen at the worst possible time. >>> Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric >>> >>> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian >>> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until >>> you started complaining about the thread. >> >> There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. >> When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO >> not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it >> is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as >> the process is for your own good. >> > >I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A >PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a >completely different story. > >> It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows >> server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite >> awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it >> and suffered. I know I did. >> > >It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to >make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this >project depends on my presentation being more successful than another >consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of >thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. > >Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? > >> But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process >> half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a >> feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric >> >> >> > >I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time. Windows allows >this, and terminates the defrag gracefully. That's one thing Windows >has on Debian. > >Just because it's OK f
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 >> >> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get > 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. > another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, > but > since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. >>> >>> I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the >>> problem >>> :) >> >> Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really >> solve the >> core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) >> instead >> of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? > > Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. > > A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, > is an > entirely different question. > > Lisi > > Lisi, While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do appreciate people trying to help out. And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not every one has made the decision to switch yet. >>> >>> What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I >>> haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I >>> have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of >>> storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. >>> >> >> Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of >> my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they >> are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not >> something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time >> before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same >> software they are. >> >>> Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to >>> Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients >>> without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know >>> better. >>> >> >> Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is >> the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. >> It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it >> will happen at the worst possible time. >> >>> Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric >>> >> >> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian >> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until >> you started complaining about the thread. > > There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. > When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO > not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it > is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as > the process is for your own good. > I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a completely different story. > It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows > server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite > awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it > and suffered. I know I did. > It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this project depends on my presentation being more successful than another consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? > But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process > half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a > feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric > > > I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time. Windows allows this, and terminates the defrag gracefully. That's one thing Windows has on Debian. Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does NOT mean it's ok for everyone else. And that's what this thread is
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 1:31 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian >> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until >> you started complaining about the thread. > > I don't think I'm the only one complaining about this "Saint Jude" lost > cause. If only we put as much effort into World Peace. :) Ric > You're the only one complaining about those of us who don't like it trying to help each other out. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a20542.8040...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Long ago, I decided that inconvenient fsck's were not what I needed. And that cancelling them was not an option - I run quasi headless so there's no way. So - I use tune2fs to set a ridiculous reboot count for automatic fsck. Then a run a cron job the does a reboot with the -F option once a month in the middle of the night when I don't need the machine. systemd won't change a thing for me. cron job follows. it actually checks for a disk that needs an fsck. #!/bin/bash #check for fsck needed and force it and reboot if needed [ "$1" = -force ] && force=yes month=$(date +%b) reboot=no while read disk rest do lastfsck=$(tune2fs -l $disk | grep 'Last checked:') lastfsck=${lastfsck:30:3} [ "$lastfsck" = "$month" ] || reboot=yes done << --end $(df | egrep '^/dev') --end if [ "$force" != yes ] then [ $reboot = no ] && exit if [ -n "$(who)" ] then echo 'Not rebooting because of logged on users' who exit fi fi echo 'checkfsck rebooting' | mail -s checkfsck root # -F below forces check of all filesystems, not just root echo 'checkfsck rebooting' shutdown -rF now sleep 120 echo 'shutdown seems to be broken again' shutdown -nrF now sleep 120 echo 'shutdown -n seems to have failed' sleep 120 touch /forcefsck sync;sync;sync;sleep 60;reboot -f sleep 120 echo 'it just wont die - need help' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87sifyuj5f@aptiva.optonline.net
Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Ric Moore Newsgroups: linux.debian.user Subject: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd? Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:50:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.989 tagged_above=-1 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01] autolearn=ham X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -7 Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ct1vvY2fbx8jBh/Hc08uYClnwRaNmlKmpDbl26M7OqE=; b=JAXOXJAZ3U/Bm+eIr4nIgh8hAWfLsYidoczlzuVR+Iyp/I+AO1G1JH39g/pQzpcT5z VXLthqUKXFlOrAgxz1EV1kUnYHrIZkM5Bbrfm7/eh+OvTCLoEVMwSuY0cqjksvsTqJzW 5XKVw41ojQzZdxugMfZ9RBe8axd+qbXKoIlubdNIF8GSeRvMn2iWd9UfBdD3Bvmi3bkp QCVM+9qaftzjaHlM1wmX8mk3J34zO4IA6SCb8iReo+bkoPf8VI46cbrZ3zRNCjB9eVqW UAe3lCdSS4VOP88x0V7zZRqtb/tp1J47opwR9Ca460b0sioA1UkN4WMZ9q/mVKT5cP6V ecjw== X-Received: by 10.67.3.100 with SMTP id bv4mr74736371pad.15.1419877803735; Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:30:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/685146 List-ID: List-URL: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/> Approved: robo...@news.nic.it Lines: 105 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robo...@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:27:59 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <54a19d2f.1040...@gmail.com> X-Original-References: <20141205190650.09a44...@ron.cerrocora.org> <5489ea5c.9030...@gmail.com> <20141227192020.0c672b297977b244762d3...@gmail.com> <201412281054.24677.lisi.re...@gmail.com> <54a028b1.9020...@gmail.com> <54a0f323.5050...@gmail.com> <54a13e95.9060...@gmail.com> Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org linux.debian.user:140641 >On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>>>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 >>>>>> >... > >>>> >>>> Lisi, >>>> >>>> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do >>>> appreciate people trying to help out. >>>> >>>> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to >>>> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >>>> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >>>> every one has made the decision to switch yet. >>> >>> What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I >>> haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I >>> have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of >>> storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. >>> >> >> Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of >> my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they >> are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not >> something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time >> before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same >> software they are. >> >>> Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to >>> Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients >>> without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know >>> better. >>> >> >> Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is >> the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. >> It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it >> will happen at the worst possible time. >> >>> Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric >>> >> >> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian >> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until >> you started complaining about the thread. > >There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a fea
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. I don't think I'm the only one complaining about this "Saint Jude" lost cause. If only we put as much effort into World Peace. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a19def.3010...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an entirely different question. Lisi Lisi, While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do appreciate people trying to help out. And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not every one has made the decision to switch yet. What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know better. Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as the process is for your own good. It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it and suffered. I know I did. But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a19d2f.1040...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get >>> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >>> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but >>> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. >> >> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy >> for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the > problem > :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >>> >>> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >>> >>> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an >>> entirely different question. >>> >>> Lisi >>> >>> >> >> Lisi, >> >> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do >> appreciate people trying to help out. >> >> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to >> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >> every one has made the decision to switch yet. > > What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I > haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I > have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of > storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. > Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now they are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the same software they are. > Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to > Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients > without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know > better. > Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it will happen at the worst possible time. > Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric > This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least until you started complaining about the thread. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a13e95.9060...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an entirely different question. Lisi Lisi, While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do appreciate people trying to help out. And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not every one has made the decision to switch yet. What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know better. Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a0f323.5050...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 >> >> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get > 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. > another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but > since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. >>> >>> I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem >>> :) >> >> Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the >> core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead >> of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? > > Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. > > A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an > entirely different question. > > Lisi > > Lisi, While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do appreciate people trying to help out. And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not every one has made the decision to switch yet. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a028b1.9020...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 > > Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > > > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get > > >> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. > > >> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but > > >> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > > > > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. > > > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem > > :) > > Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the > core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead > of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, is an entirely different question. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412281054.24677.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/27/2014 7:20 PM, Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 > Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >>> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. >>> >>> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. >>> >>> >> >> I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) > > Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the > core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead > of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? > > Celejar > > That's a fine idea if I'm booted into that OS previously. But I have several development systems on here I use for client work, and the OS I use for presentations is pretty vanilla. The last thing I need is to find out just before a presentation that I screwed up a device driver and the OS won't boot :) Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/549f59b7.70...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 > >> minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another > >> presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my > >> time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. > > > > > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141227192020.0c672b297977b244762d3...@gmail.com
Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Mon 22 Dec 2014 at 11:58:55 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote: > > >> Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me. > > >> So I think this deserves a bug report. > > > > > > Don't get carried away and start typing. > > > > > > #758902 > > > > > > Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more > > > > Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem > > to be willing to budge... go figure > > Why doesn't this surprise me? Because you haven't thought it through? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014101906.gp19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote: > >> Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me. > >> So I think this deserves a bug report. > > > > Don't get carried away and start typing. > > > > #758902 > > > Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more > > Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem > to be willing to budge... go figure Why doesn't this surprise me? -- Bob Holtzman Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria came to Earth to rape our women and create a race of mindless zombies. Look! It's working! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141222185855.ga11...@cox.net
Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
>> Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me. >> So I think this deserves a bug report. > > Don't get carried away and start typing. > > #758902 Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem to be willing to budge... go figure cheers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5497e2c1.6060...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Dec 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote: > 15 seconds extra, a couple times a year isn't all THAT bad. > > FWIW, I think I found out why ext4 fsck's faster than ext3 (or the other > exts). Seems ext4 only checks the part of the filesystem that's been > used/writtento/etc. instead of the entire filesystem/partition. Yes, that’s the secret sauce. There was a paper (in Usenix FAST, I think) about what’s new in ext4. My own experience is with ext4 filesystems of up to 6 TB. The application is radio station automation. A half hour show is about 600GB, so lots of very big files. Total time to do a full fsck is under two minutes. It can be nerve-wracking when the station is down because the server decided to reboot and do an fsck, but it’s *way* better than it used to be with ext3! Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d85313ea-3170-4afe-91f0-f605f8965...@pobox.com
Re: xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)
On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote: > > Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular > > scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and > > I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context > > which struck me as reliable. > > As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should > probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly > impact your application. XFS is slower than ext4 on certain metadata-heavy workloads, and faster in multiple-stream workloads. It also scales better than ext4 on very big filesystems. It is, however, more memory-hungry. I use it extensively wherever I don't expect more than one crash an year. Otherwise, I go with ext4 (better fsck). > I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out > of the box in most scenarios and to keep my installations as simple as > possible as it's unlikely I would feel any real difference by switching > to another filesystem. Agreed. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141214124727.ga1...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)
On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote: > > Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular > scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and > I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context > which struck me as reliable. As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly impact your application. I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out of the box in most scenarios and to keep my installations as simple as possible as it's unlikely I would feel any real difference by switching to another filesystem. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
El Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:33PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU escribió: > On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > > > I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a > > dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it > > is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the > > 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this. > > Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought > > about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole > > shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't. > > If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;) Totally agree > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser > Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic > http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141214075318.GA2882@hopelux
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > > > I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER > > had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice > > thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 > > seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't > > actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO > > quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat > > there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I > > don't. > > If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;) 15 seconds extra, a couple times a year isn't all THAT bad. FWIW, I think I found out why ext4 fsck's faster than ext3 (or the other exts). Seems ext4 only checks the part of the filesystem that's been used/writtento/etc. instead of the entire filesystem/partition. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213164039.13973...@debian7.boseck208.net
xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)
On 12/13/2014 at 02:45 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote: > >> I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER >> had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice >> thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 >> seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't >> actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO >> quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat >> there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I >> don't. > > If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;) What are the downsides of xfs, in overview summary form? Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context which struck me as reliable. Beyond just xfs, I'd also be interested in the same sort of information (downsides - or more like really trade-offs - and suitability for general-purpose use) for other not-so-typical filesystems. I've never been entirely happy with just defaulting to extX for most filesystems every time I build a new machine, but the last time I did a build with something else it was reiserfs, and that wound up having problems in the long run - not to mention ending up relatively unsupported, AFAIK, given the fate of its namesake and primary developer. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote: > > I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a > dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it > is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the > 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this. > Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought > about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole > shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't. If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * Patrick Bartek [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]: > > [...]> I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root > before > > shutdown -r now: > > > > touch /forcefsck > > > > On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file > > forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot. > > shutdown(8) > > .. >-f Skip fsck on reboot. > >-F Force fsck on reboot. > .. Those shutdown options are no longer available or work in Testing/Jessie. Tested. Generates error and returns user to command line without shutting down. However, forcefsck method works. Tried to make my reply specific for Jessie since the thread originally was. These options are still available with Wheezy, and, I assume, prior Debian releases. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213103050.19409...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/13/2014 12:26 PM, Curt wrote: On 2014-12-13, Jape Person wrote: Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of /forcefsck? I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route, which avoids writing to a potentially corrupted file system. I hadn't considered that. It certainly makes sense. Writing to a file system that you're checking to be sure it's not corrupted is actually kind of a weird thing to do, isn't it? That actually makes a point about current standards and practices not necessarily making sense -- even if they are what we're accustomed to using. JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548c849c.7030...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 2014-12-13, Jape Person wrote: > > Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of > /forcefsck? > I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route, which avoids writing to a potentially corrupted file system. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnm8otla.2c9.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/13/2014 10:31 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: Joel Rees writes: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > shutdown(8) > > > >-F Force fsck on reboot. > > Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages. By the way the -F flag causes /forcefsck to appear Speaking of which... When I do the "# touch /forcefsck" and reboot, fsck runs properly and writes its results to the journal. However, the results are preceded by a warning line which suggests using "fsck.mode=force", which doesn't work for forcing fsck to run as desired on remote systems (at least not without some digging and fiddling). That begs the question of whether or not use of /forcefsck is going to stop working at some point. Hence my switch to use of the tune2fs solution, which works perfectly. Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of /forcefsck? JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548c6a6c.4020...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Joel Rees writes: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter > wrote: > > shutdown(8) > > > >-F Force fsck on reboot. > > Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages. By the way the -F flag causes /forcefsck to appear -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21644.23491.322245.972...@mail.eng.it
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Sat 13 Dec 2014 at 20:26:02 +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > > * Patrick Bartek [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]: > > > > [...]> I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before > >> shutdown -r now: > >> > >> touch /forcefsck > >> > >> On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file > >> forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot. > > > > shutdown(8) > > > > .. > >-f Skip fsck on reboot. > > > >-F Force fsck on reboot. > > .. > > > > > > Elimar > > -- > > Never make anything simple and efficient when a way > > can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-) > > Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages. Pssst. Don't be too surprised at not finding either option in the Jessie manual. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213120132.gi19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter wrote: > * Patrick Bartek [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]: > > [...]> I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before >> shutdown -r now: >> >> touch /forcefsck >> >> On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file >> forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot. > > shutdown(8) > > .. >-f Skip fsck on reboot. > >-F Force fsck on reboot. > .. > > > Elimar > -- > Never make anything simple and efficient when a way > can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-) Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages. :-p -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iPk8m_5_L9B-kUiOgDcrNigOdHmBjMg3st=7cuwxye...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
* Patrick Bartek [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]: [...]> I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before > shutdown -r now: > > touch /forcefsck > > On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file > forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot. shutdown(8) .. -f Skip fsck on reboot. -F Force fsck on reboot. .. Elimar -- Never make anything simple and efficient when a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213103714.ga2...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 2014-12-12, Brian wrote: > > You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some > more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ), > He also says nothing about what forced him to reinstall so many times, nor why he concludes it is due to an absence of fsck file system checks, thus adding another infuriating zero to his concatenation of zeroes, I guess. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnm8o3k5.2c9.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > > > On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote: > > > > > > Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts > > > and a picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much > > > confidence you can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated > > > data. > > > > I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this > > situation, and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * > > 0 == 0 ) *no* data. > > You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some > more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ), > > tune2fs(8) says > >You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling >mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, >memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without >marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using >journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be >marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem >error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the >next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss >at that point. > > Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is > optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss. > > The changelog for e2fsprogs has > >Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace >extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file >system checks disabled. > > This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what > it strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in > e2fsprogs is that time- and mount count-based checks are not > particularly useful. > > > http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf > > If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new > Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course > anyway and their number will grow in the coming years. > > Are they any the worse off because these checks are not being made? > Has upstream got it wrong? Should some sections of the documentation > be rewritten? Or can default program behaviour and documentation be > reconciled? I find "mount count" fs checks useless. You have to shutdown your system on a regular basis for it to be effective. My personal desktop system runs 24/7. I usually only shut it down 2 or 3 times a year. For cleaning. Guess I could set up "time between" checks, but I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before shutdown -r now: touch /forcefsck On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot. I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't. Running a very custom Wheezy 64-bit install: 3GHZ quad-core AMD Phenom, 8GB RAM, Openbox WM only with a single LXPanel. B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212200726.18502...@debian7.boseck208.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/12/2014 6:47 PM, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > >> On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote: >>> >>> Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a >>> picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you >>> can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data. >> >> I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation, >> and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no* >> data. > > You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some > more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ), > > tune2fs(8) says > >You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling >mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, >memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without >marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using >journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be >marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem >error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the >next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss >at that point. > > Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is > optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss. > > The changelog for e2fsprogs has > >Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace >extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file >system checks disabled. > > This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what it > strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in e2fsprogs > is that time- and mount count-based checks are not particularly useful. > > > http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf > > If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new > Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course > anyway and their number will grow in the coming years. > > Are they any the worse off because these checks are not being made? > Has upstream got it wrong? Should some sections of the documentation > be rewritten? Or can default program behaviour and documentation be > reconciled? > > I guess this is something Windows does better than Linux. Windows never does a checkdsk except after a hard crash - and not always then. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b9a27.3070...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote: > > > > Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a > > picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you > > can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data. > > I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation, > and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no* > data. You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ), tune2fs(8) says You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables, memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss at that point. Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss. The changelog for e2fsprogs has Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file system checks disabled. This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what it strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in e2fsprogs is that time- and mount count-based checks are not particularly useful. http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course anyway and their number will grow in the coming years. Are they any the worse off because these checks are not being made? Has upstream got it wrong? Should some sections of the documentation be rewritten? Or can default program behaviour and documentation be reconciled? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212234737.gh19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/12/2014 2:34 PM, Brian wrote: > On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote: >>> >>> The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when >>> to run one remains. >> >> Which is fine. I can run it during the day when I'm not under a >> deadline. The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time. >> >> (Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the >> list - don't know why). And I want to thank you for the idea of >> changing the max mount. I think that will work for me just fine. Just >> set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else >> when I don't need the system for a few minutes. > > It was Gian Uberto Lauri who made the suggestion, actually. > >> At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie. But right now >> none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at >> other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet. >> >> Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just >> stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing. Now I'm >> going to have to keep up with other versions, also. Maybe it's a good >> time to raise my rates :) > > We were thinking of doing the same on -user. Are invoices to your email > address acceptable? :) > > Sure. I'll pay anything up to 20% above the current rate :) Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b4d69.9080...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when > > to run one remains. > > Which is fine. I can run it during the day when I'm not under a > deadline. The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time. > > (Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the > list - don't know why). And I want to thank you for the idea of > changing the max mount. I think that will work for me just fine. Just > set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else > when I don't need the system for a few minutes. It was Gian Uberto Lauri who made the suggestion, actually. > At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie. But right now > none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at > other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet. > > Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just > stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing. Now I'm > going to have to keep up with other versions, also. Maybe it's a good > time to raise my rates :) We were thinking of doing the same on -user. Are invoices to your email address acceptable? :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/12122014193029.98630bf0f...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote: > On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle writes: >>> >>> > This means fsck will never run because I don't use >>> > the laptop outside of those times. >>> >>> Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check >>> the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the "fsck on max mount or >>> time exceeded" work to do what you want and not what it wants. >>> >> >> No, I work enough hours as it is. I have a life outside of Debian. >> >> However, the max mount is an interesting idea. I'll look at it - but >> right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported. If >> the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is) >> still has systemd, I'll be changing distros. > > The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when > to run one remains. > > Which is fine. I can run it during the day when I'm not under a deadline. The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time. (Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the list - don't know why). And I want to thank you for the idea of changing the max mount. I think that will work for me just fine. Just set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else when I don't need the system for a few minutes. At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie. But right now none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet. Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing. Now I'm going to have to keep up with other versions, also. Maybe it's a good time to raise my rates :) Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b39ef.4080...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle writes: > > > > > This means fsck will never run because I don't use > > > the laptop outside of those times. > > > > Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check > > the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the "fsck on max mount or > > time exceeded" work to do what you want and not what it wants. > > > > No, I work enough hours as it is. I have a life outside of Debian. > > However, the max mount is an interesting idea. I'll look at it - but > right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported. If > the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is) > still has systemd, I'll be changing distros. The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when to run one remains. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/12122014170438.58d23386d...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 10:11:53 +, Darac Marjal wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote: > > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > > > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > > > > > For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look > > > > at > > > > > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574 > > > > > > > > > > To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea. > > > > Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this > > way: > > > > He says > > > > If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to > > take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it, > > and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that. > > There's a solution to this. Stopping fsck is basically a similar task to > mounting a crypto disk - inasmuch as you want to drop out of the > parallel boot mode (so, if fsck is necessary, all current start-tasks > (which don't depend on this disk) should be allowed to complete) and > allow interaction with the operator. Isn't this what plymouth is for? > As I understand it, Plymouth allows interaction with the operator even > if the task is running in parallel and is "backgrounded" somewhere. > > If the fsck happens once plymouth has completed, then I think it's > probably safe to assume that multi-user mode is available. In which > case, you can simply allow for "systemctl stop Some-Mount-Task" to > safely terminate fsck. Sounds an interesting approach. My familiarity with plymouth is very sparse so testing of this idea is down to the people who want to cancel an in-progress fsck. I've become a bit happier with "StandardInput=tty" but one could use a solution based on ExecStart, which works without having to touch a tty. Replace the ExecStart line in systemd-fsck@.service with ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/fsckcancel fsckcancel is an executable sh script which contains code to compare the "Mount count" with the "Maximumum mount count" and then, depending on the result of the comparison, runs an fsck on a partition or exits. There we are: cancellation without having to lift a finger to hit a key. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/12122014163505.82079b86b...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 20141211_1257+0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: > > > > But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot > > and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. > > I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can > manipulate the "Maximum mount count" without having to umount the > filesystem: write a script that always sets the "Maximum mount count" to > '0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the > crontab). > > With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with > a simple: > > tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY Andrei: If one were to put the following line into /etc/rc.local: tune2fs -l /dev/sdXY where whould the output go? In particular could it be directed to a place that is easily noticed by the owner/user of the computer? TIA -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212160854.ga6...@big.lan.gnu
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
> Atomic in the original word meaning can't be cut, and stopping is a form of > cutting. Rolling back is a strategy to permit stopping an atomic operation, > but I am unsure thi can be done always. The fact that *some* actions need to be atomic doesn't prevent interrupting various (other) long-running operations. In general "atomic" and "long-running" don't go well together, so while some atomic operation may be long-running it's usually a problem in itself (e.g. in case of power/software failure). Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/jwva92tx9ky.fsf-monnier+in...@gnu.org
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote: > Jerry Stuckle writes: > > > This means fsck will never run because I don't use > > the laptop outside of those times. > > Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check > the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the "fsck on max mount or > time exceeded" work to do what you want and not what it wants. > No, I work enough hours as it is. I have a life outside of Debian. However, the max mount is an interesting idea. I'll look at it - but right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported. If the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is) still has systemd, I'll be changing distros. The other option is to follow many of my clients to another distro, which is also a possibility. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548afd71.8080...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Friday 12 December 2014 11:43:41 Ric Moore wrote: > Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone > had an fsck? 2 days ago. Automatic. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412121350.55761.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
2014/12/11 19:39 "Andrei POPESCU" : > > On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote: > > > > Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an > > automatic fsck. > > > > I did nothing in particular to enable that. > > > > I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be > > there. > > Check filesystem creation date: > > e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low > ... > * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace > extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file > system checks disabled. > ... > -- Theodore Y. Ts'o Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400 hmmm. Boot partition of my wheezy install: dumpe2fs tells me the creation date is June 2012. Last check was Dec 8. Now this is interesting, the check interval is 6 months. And it has a max count and mount count, as well. > The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still > getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were > newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it). > > I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, > but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then, > including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway. > > Kind regards, > Andrei > -- > http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser > Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic > http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 19:16:03, Reco wrote: > > Note that Ubuntu limits sudo-allows-all configuration to the first > created user by default. As does Debian (if a root password isn't set). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone had an fsck? It's been ages since I last had one. Inquiring minds, Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548ad4ed.8000...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Jerry Stuckle writes: > This means fsck will never run because I don't use > the laptop outside of those times. Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the "fsck on max mount or time exceeded" work to do what you want and not what it wants. -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21642.52037.931895.360...@mail.eng.it
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > > > For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look > > > at > > > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574 > > > > > > > To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea. > > Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this > way: > > He says > > If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to > take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it, > and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that. There's a solution to this. Stopping fsck is basically a similar task to mounting a crypto disk - inasmuch as you want to drop out of the parallel boot mode (so, if fsck is necessary, all current start-tasks (which don't depend on this disk) should be allowed to complete) and allow interaction with the operator. Isn't this what plymouth is for? As I understand it, Plymouth allows interaction with the operator even if the task is running in parallel and is "backgrounded" somewhere. If the fsck happens once plymouth has completed, then I think it's probably safe to assume that multi-user mode is available. In which case, you can simply allow for "systemctl stop Some-Mount-Task" to safely terminate fsck. > > but being pragmatic, if you applied the suggested change, tested and > found no confusion taking place then keep it. > > I'm not completely happy with that approach but if it works, it works. > > I'd like to suggest 'tune2fs -c -1 /dev/sdaX' and running an fsck when > *you* decide but the heavens could fall in. :) > > > >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 > > >> minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another > > >> presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my > > >> time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > > > > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. > > > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) > > But it does get you responses. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > https://lists.debian.org/11122014192651.c5b5a6ea0...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Stefan Monnier writes: >> users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot >> time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination. > > The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt > various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event) > during boot. > Well, get ready for some disappointment then, because that plain isn't possible. Most operations will be cancellable, but there will always exist operations that can't be cancelled, by design or by accident. -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86a92t451c@gaheris.avalon.lan
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 20141211_1223+0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote: > > > but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then, > including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway. > insert fsck reminder into to-do list using crontab? boot from a live CD, manual action to actually start the fsck? ;-) -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212053111.gb3...@big.lan.gnu
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote: > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > > > On 20141210_1830+, Brian wrote: > > > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic > > > > >fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the > > > > >default > > > > >for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on > > > > >systems > > > > >with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" check). > > > > > > > > Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a > > > > possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their > > > > gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who > > > > might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea > > > > of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just > > > > because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running > > > > a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt > > > > it in case of emergency isn't. > > > > > > Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For > > ^^ > > > > Until I read the above, I had not realized that automatic fsck had > > been gone for so long -- and without me noticing. I suppose it is > > true, but I have no way of verifying. I know Wheezy and Jessie were > > both new installs for me because I had a very poor track record of > > doing successful dist-upgrades. > > This paragraph constitutes data. It says that you have gone without an > fsck for x years without noticing anything untoward that you can ascribe > to a lack of one. It may be less detailed than a dedicated study might > want but they are valid data. You assume too much. I did not say my system was utterly stable. In fact, there was something seriously wrong that required me to repeatedly re-install from backups. Only when I read your post did I think that the maybe your claim of forced fsck being dropped might be true. But as Bob Proulx said much better than I, we have no data. I had so many occasions on which I needed to re-install that I developed a semi-automated re-install procedure that works so nicely that I think I will be using it instead of dist-upgrade in the future. It does get rid of cruft on the disk. > > Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a > picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you > can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data. > I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation, and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no* data. > > Of course, there might have been some disastrous loss of data out > > there somewhere on someone else's computer. And that someone might not > > have realized that his data might have been saved if there had been a > > automatic fsck. If he thought about it at all, he probably just > > supposed that the disk failed 'between file checks', which had always > > been a possibility. > > These are also data. It is also conjecture. It is very doubtful that > 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts would see any useful conclusion > formed. > > > So the fact that there is no record of complaints > > proves nothing, one way or the other. We have no valid data, IMHO. > > We have no data (valid or not) about failure. We do have data relating to I reject the concept of invalid data.;-) We do have some anecdotal information about user behavior, or about how users write anecdotes. But users write in very different styles. It is, IMHO, seldom true that an anecdote is worthy of careful textual analysis. > success; you added to it above. :) One single, well-substantiated No. See above augmentation of my account. > failure would be enough to cause a conclusion drawn from the record of > success to be re-examined. I commend Bob for his clear statement of the objection to your reasoning. Peace. -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212050456.ga3...@big.lan.gnu
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 07:37:16 +1100, Charlie wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent: > > > > > The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still > > getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were > > newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it). > > > > I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, > > but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and > > then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot > > anyway. > > I have to admit that I noticed it, but was made an ass off, because I > assumed it was happening in the background. Not realising it always > started before the boot because it couldn't fsck while the machine was > running. > > I thought that might have been what allowed systemd to boot faster? > > If you find a way "to implement a forced fsck every now and then could > you please post it here. As I would be very pleased to be able to do > that now realising it is no longer happening at all. If you are using grub highlight the menu entry you want. Edit the entry by adding "fsck.mode=force" to the end of the "linux" line. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014233636.7b579c4f7...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Atomic in the original word meaning can't be cut, and stopping is a form of cutting. Rolling back is a strategy to permit stopping an atomic operation, but I am unsure thi can be done always. -- Gian Uberto Lauri Messaggio inviato da un tablet On 11/dic/2014, at 17:42, Stefan Monnier wrote: users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination. >>> The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt >>> various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event) >>> during boot. >> But some operations are "atomic". > > I don't see how to affects what I said. > > >Stefan > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: > https://lists.debian.org/jwvwq5ydtq6.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/deb04869-1826-40eb-be5b-5088a3658...@eng.it
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 03:37 PM, Charlie wrote: On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent: The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it). I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway. I have to admit that I noticed it, but was made an ass off, because I assumed it was happening in the background. Not realising it always started before the boot because it couldn't fsck while the machine was running. I thought that might have been what allowed systemd to boot faster? If you find a way "to implement a forced fsck every now and then could you please post it here. As I would be very pleased to be able to do that now realising it is no longer happening at all. Being and "ordinary" user I have no idea where to look or even start. Thank you, Charlie Some of the messages in this thread are an exchange between myself and Andrei Popescu. Andrei came up with a perfectly easy solution which I have tested and found to work. It involves an edit (as root) of /etc/rc.local to add a single line. That line invokes the tune2fs utility to set a parameter called maximum mount count to 0 during the boot process. That keeps fsck from being invoked. For a system which boots from /boot in /dev/sda1 I used: tune2fs -c 0 /dev/sda1 as the line added to rc.local. When I want to manually run fsck on that partition I use: # tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sda1 That sets maximum mount count to 1, which means that fsck will be run on /dev/sda1 the next time the system is booted. This strategy means that, following the file system check, rc.local will again use tune2fs to set the maximum mount count back to 0 so that fsck won't run on the subsequent reboot. And Bob's your uncle! Yours truly, another ordinary user -- JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548a0de7.8060...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can manipulate the "Maximum mount count" without having to umount the filesystem: write a script that always sets the "Maximum mount count" to '0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the crontab). With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with a simple: tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY and the script will reset "Maximum mount count" immediately after, so you don't get a check on every reboot ;) Kind regards, Andrei Hello, Andrei! I just wanted to confirm that adding a single line to rc.local to set Maximum mount count to 0 and then using tune2fs to set the count to 1 and rebooting had exactly the effect desired. I know it was obvious -- once you suggested it -- that this would work, but thought I should confirm the method's efficacy for anyone else who might be interested. I also wanted to thank you again. I ran fsck manually by this method on a remote (very) system without involving the end user at all. Just what the doctor ordered! Best regards, JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548a0887.5030...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent: > The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still > getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were > newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it). > > I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, > but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and > then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot > anyway. I have to admit that I noticed it, but was made an ass off, because I assumed it was happening in the background. Not realising it always started before the boot because it couldn't fsck while the machine was running. I thought that might have been what allowed systemd to boot faster? If you find a way "to implement a forced fsck every now and then could you please post it here. As I would be very pleased to be able to do that now realising it is no longer happening at all. Being and "ordinary" user I have no idea where to look or even start. Thank you, Charlie -- Registered Linux User:- 329524 *** An opinion is like a branding iron. It is one thing to hold it, and another to press it into the skin of a friend. James Lileks *** Debian GNU/Linux - just the best way to create magic - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212073716.37a75a14@taogypsy
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > > > > For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look > > at > > > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574 > > > > To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea. Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this way: He says If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it, and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that. but being pragmatic, if you applied the suggested change, tested and found no confusion taking place then keep it. I'm not completely happy with that approach but if it works, it works. I'd like to suggest 'tune2fs -c -1 /dev/sdaX' and running an fsck when *you* decide but the heavens could fall in. :) > >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 > >> minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another > >> presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my > >> time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) But it does get you responses. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014192651.c5b5a6ea0...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: > On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially >> critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux? > > As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is concerned I've already > mentioned grub's datehook module. Ok, you have to set it up in grub.cfg > but then you can forget about ever having an fsck run at an inconvenient > time. Assuming your presentations tend to take place between 10:00 and > 20:00 the machine would be configured to not run an fsck during that > time slot. > OK, so I set it up not to run between 07:30 and 21:00 (some presentations start as early as 8:00 AM and some evening presentations as late as 8:30 PM). This means fsck will never run because I don't use the laptop outside of those times. >> Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the >> wrong time. > > For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look > at > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574 > To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea. >> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 >> minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another >> presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my >> time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. > > Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. > > I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :) Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489ea5c.9030...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially > critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux? As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is concerned I've already mentioned grub's datehook module. Ok, you have to set it up in grub.cfg but then you can forget about ever having an fsck run at an inconvenient time. Assuming your presentations tend to take place between 10:00 and 20:00 the machine would be configured to not run an fsck during that time slot. > Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the > wrong time. For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574 > I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 > minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another > presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my > time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014180201.1f494f1dd...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 5:53 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote: > Hi, > fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time. >>> >>> What if I do not have that time, >> >> Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if >> required). > > Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work "just > before" boarding a plane is now "at risk". > Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing updates when he > shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no time to wait, he had not > planned on there being an interruption in the "normal baviour". This morning > his laptop would not boot. > The same can happen with "normal users" if we give them the new Debian Jessie > on a laptop and they run into a similar situation where fsck will start when > it "is not a good time to do so". For whatever reason. There needs to be a > non corrupting way to something that can last that long. > >> No other choices. > In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but "soon" after that we really > need it. > >> Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the problem. > When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we can > plan. When it simply runs "because it does that sometimes", no thank you, I > would like a cancel option. > > Bonno Bloksma > > A perfect example. I often do work "just before boarding a plane" on a Windows notebook, because around here you don't know when a plane is going to board until they actually start boarding it. It could be on time, or it could be 30 minutes (or more) late. But I have Windows Update set to "Notify only" - no automatic downloading and installing of updates. That way I can control when the updates are done (I've seen it take > 20 minutes to shut down after a major update). If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux? Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the wrong time. I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I get 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, but since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489d03e.5040...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
>> > users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot >> > time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination. >> The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt >> various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event) >> during boot. > But some operations are "atomic". I don't see how to affects what I said. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/jwvwq5ydtq6.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Hi. On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:51:23 -0300 Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI wrote: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100 > Mart van de Wege wrote: > > > This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day, > > complaining about not being able to login as root. > > And how do you keep a multi-user box safe if any user can sudo ? And why anyone would configure sudo to allow any user to run any command on behalf of any other user? Besides, even if such broken sudo configuration is in place already, who's forbidding one to reconfigure sudo? Note that Ubuntu limits sudo-allows-all configuration to the first created user by default. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141211191603.ca46e9f3e51bd0507ed5c...@gmail.com
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Stefan Monnier writes: > > users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot > > time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination. > > The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt > various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event) > during boot. But some operations are "atomic". -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21641.42908.290433.745...@mail.eng.it
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can manipulate the "Maximum mount count" without having to umount the filesystem: write a script that always sets the "Maximum mount count" to '0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the crontab). With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with a simple: tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY and the script will reset "Maximum mount count" immediately after, so you don't get a check on every reboot ;) Kind regards, Andrei Whoa! And I get the answer just handed to me! Now how am I supposed to learn anything when you just spoon-feed me? ;) You know, I had been staring at tune2fs for a while and didn't come up with such a possibility -- mainly, I suppose, because I'm not used to using home-made scripts. I do almost everything by hand these days. You have to love the power of scripting. And the power of subscribing to a list with folks like you on it. Many, many thanks, Andrei! Best regards, JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489a6aa.1050...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On 12/11/2014 05:09 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for your findings. Kind regards, Andrei Tee-hee. Assuming I'm smart enough (or motivated enough) to figure it out. So far it looks like more than a little trouble to go through to be able to set up a way to manually force a boot-time fsck (without involving the end users). As I may have mentioned, the command "touch /forcefsck" still works with the systemd init system, but it produces a warning in the log which makes me think that the function will disappear sooner or later. Figuring this out should at least be easier than switching everybody over to OpenBSD or some such. And -- if I find a means of accomplishing the goal -- I'll definitely post it. Thank you again, Andrei! Best regards, JP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489a4f6.8030...@comcast.net
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
> users equally well. If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot > time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination. The issue goes beyond fsck. It's important to be able to interrupt various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event) during boot. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/jwv7fxyguqy.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote: > On 20141210_1830+, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > > >Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic > > > >fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default > > > >for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems > > > >with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" check). > > > > > > Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a > > > possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their > > > gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who > > > might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea > > > of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just > > > because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running > > > a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt > > > it in case of emergency isn't. > > > > Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For > ^^ > > Until I read the above, I had not realized that automatic fsck had > been gone for so long -- and without me noticing. I suppose it is > true, but I have no way of verifying. I know Wheezy and Jessie were > both new installs for me because I had a very poor track record of > doing successful dist-upgrades. This paragraph constitutes data. It says that you have gone without an fsck for x years without noticing anything untoward that you can ascribe to a lack of one. It may be less detailed than a dedicated study might want but they are valid data. Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data. > Of course, there might have been some disastrous loss of data out > there somewhere on someone else's computer. And that someone might not > have realized that his data might have been saved if there had been a > automatic fsck. If he thought about it at all, he probably just > supposed that the disk failed 'between file checks', which had always > been a possibility. These are also data. It is also conjecture. It is very doubtful that 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts would see any useful conclusion formed. > So the fact that there is no record of complaints > proves nothing, one way or the other. We have no valid data, IMHO. We have no data (valid or not) about failure. We do have data relating to success; you added to it above. :) One single, well-substantiated failure would be enough to cause a conclusion drawn from the record of success to be re-examined. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014125513.2457700af...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
RE: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Bonno Bloksma writes: > Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some > work "just before" boarding a plane is now "at risk". Just before boarding some plane is the "bad time and place" for some work. > Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing > updates when he shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no > time to wait, he had not planned on there being an interruption in > the "normal baviour". This morning his laptop would not boot. Bad timing for use of a computer. You know how it works, you know what it can do. But you are the only one with a brain between the ears. Start using it. You know that Windows might download automagically updates and that it could install them when you shutdown? > The same can happen with "normal users" if we give them the new Maybe these normal users should be made a bit more aware of what they do. Again, who is the one in charge because is equipped with a working brain? > Debian Jessie on a laptop and they run into a similar situation > where fsck will start when it "is not a good time to do so". For > whatever reason. There needs to be a non corrupting way to > something that can last that long. If every child on every street, had clothes to wear and food to eat... Things created by man do have drawbacks. It's something you can't avoid. > > No other choices. > In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but "soon" after that we > really need it. I think that even more people really need some type of perpetual motion engine... > When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, > we can plan. When it simply runs "because it does that sometimes", > no thank you, I would like a cancel option. You have the option. Disable it. At your own risk. On the other hand, the script could halt for user input. Then we will have people complaining that they must attend the boot process. -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning "I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian" Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21641.39890.538783.641...@mail.eng.it
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 10:53:07 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote: > > Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the > > problem. > When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we > can plan. When it simply runs "because it does that sometimes", no > thank you, I would like a cancel option. Then you will want to follow the advice in Comment 10 at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719952 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/11122014125121.4e55d200e...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: > > But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot > and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can manipulate the "Maximum mount count" without having to umount the filesystem: write a script that always sets the "Maximum mount count" to '0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the crontab). With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with a simple: tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY and the script will reset "Maximum mount count" immediately after, so you don't get a check on every reboot ;) Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100 Mart van de Wege wrote: > This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day, > complaining about not being able to login as root. And how do you keep a multi-user box safe if any user can sudo ? Cheers, Ron. -- La gloire est une affaire privée. -- Louis Lachenal -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141211075123.43fe1...@ron.cerrocora.org
RE: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Hi, >> > fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time. >> >> What if I do not have that time, > > Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if > required). Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work "just before" boarding a plane is now "at risk". Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing updates when he shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no time to wait, he had not planned on there being an interruption in the "normal baviour". This morning his laptop would not boot. The same can happen with "normal users" if we give them the new Debian Jessie on a laptop and they run into a similar situation where fsck will start when it "is not a good time to do so". For whatever reason. There needs to be a non corrupting way to something that can last that long. > No other choices. In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but "soon" after that we really need it. > Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the problem. When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we can plan. When it simply runs "because it does that sometimes", no thank you, I would like a cancel option. Bonno Bloksma -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/89d1798a7351d040b4e74e0a043c69d7a83dc...@einexch-01.tio.nl
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:16:05PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > 2014/12/11 3:48 "Brian" : > > > > On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > > > > > On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > > > > >Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic > > > >fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default > > > >for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems > > > >with bad power (you'd still get the "bad shutdown" check). > > > > > > Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a > > > possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their > > > gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who > > > might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea > > > of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just > > > because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running > > > a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt > > > it in case of emergency isn't. > > > > Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. [...] > > Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an automatic > fsck. > > I did nothing in particular to enable that. > > I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be > there. No, Brian is correct. It's a simple thing to check (up-to-date Wheezy): $ truncate -s 1G 1.raw $ /sbin/mkfs.ext4 1.raw mke2fs 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012) 1.raw is not a block special device. Proceed anyway? (y,n) y Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) Stride=0 blocks, Stripe width=0 blocks 65536 inodes, 262144 blocks 13107 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=268435456 8 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 8192 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376 Allocating group tables: done Writing inode tables: done Creating journal (8192 blocks): done Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done $ /sbin/tune2fs -l 1.raw ... Filesystem created: Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014 Last mount time: n/a Last write time: Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014 Mount count: 0 Maximum mount count: -1 Last checked: Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014 Check interval: 0 () ... Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141211105006.ga25...@d1696.int.rdtex.ru
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote: > > Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an > automatic fsck. > > I did nothing in particular to enable that. > > I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be > there. Check filesystem creation date: e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low ... * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file system checks disabled. ... -- Theodore Y. Ts'o Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400 The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it). I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote: > > But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot > and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution. I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for your findings. Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature