On Apr 23, 2015, at 8:49 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> From: Warren Young Sent: April 22, 2015 20:46
>> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have done some "what if" testing.
>>
>> Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up
>> yourself? I
From: Warren Young Sent: April 22, 2015 20:46
> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank
> wrote:
> >
> > I have done some "what if" testing.
>
> Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up
> yourself? If the latter, would you care to share?
I cobbled something togeth
On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> I have done some "what if" testing.
Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up yourself? If the
latter, would you care to share?
I’ve updated mine to break out the stats for 3+ volumes instead of just
reporting all
From: Warren Young Sent: April 21, 2015 14:13
> On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43
> >>
> >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set
> >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to
> 23, and the
> >> fo
On 04/21/2015 12:13 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30
Why do you accept that?
Every article I have read on the subject has recommended this a good
practice.
Not every source is equal.
The maintainers turned that behavior off by default sometime a
On Apr 21, 2015, at 3:12 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> With the four values that Kay provided, I calculate a 1.2% chance on average
> that two or more volumes will need to be checked on the same reboot.
Ooops, forgot to mention one other minor detail:
This calculator gives the chance or a 2+ vol
On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43
>>
>> instead of having 20 for all of them, set
>> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to 23, and the
>> fourth to 29.
>
> Thanks but that is not much different then my
On Tue, April 21, 2015 2:13 pm, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30
>>
>> On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>> > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I
>> am willing
>> > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would l
From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30
>
> On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I
> am willing
> > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize
> > downtime (during the reboot) where possible.
From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:54
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> > I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to
> > avoid 70 minute boot times (which is what happened on the weekend).
>
> How many filesystems do you have?
It v
On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing
to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize
downtime (during the reboot) where possible.
Why do you accept that? The default behavior for filesystems s
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19
>>
>> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't
>> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root
>> filesystem normally runs first. So you migh
From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19
>
> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't
> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root
> filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs.
> everything else.
I am trying to avoid
On Tue, April 21, 2015 11:19 am, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank
> wrote:
>> >
>> Thanks but changing the order of execution or executing them in
>> parallel does not help with executing them one per reboot.
>
> Why do you care about running them at the
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> Thanks but changing the order of execution or executing them in
> parallel does not help with executing them one per reboot.
Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't
take longer to run them all in paralle
From: Hugh E Cruickshank Sent: April 20, 2015 21:09
>
> Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with
> fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except
> doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to
> stagger these, ideally only ex
From: Mark Milhollan Sent: April 21, 2015 05:35
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
>
> >CentOS 6
>
> >From ''man fstab'' ...
>
>The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8)
> program to determine the order
>in which filesystem checks are done at reboot time
From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43
> On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> >
> > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random
> > count value. This would run the risk of having two or more
> > executions at the same time but it would probably not be v
From: John R Pierce Sent: April 20, 2015 23:58
> On 4/20/2015 9:08 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different
> random count
> > value. This would run the risk of having two or more executions at
> > the same time but it would probably not be very f
From: Arun Khan Sent: April 20, 2015 23:49
>
> Take a look at 'man tune2fs' and 'man fstab' for modifying the fsck
> order in your system.
Thanks but I did look at those and I was not able to find anything
that would limit the fsck executions to one per reboot. Changing the
order of execution w
On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> CentOS 6
>
> Hi All:
>
> Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with
> fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except
> doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to
> stagger
On 4/20/2015 9:08 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count
value. This would run the risk of having two or more executions at
the same time but it would probably not be very frequent.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way of do
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote:
> CentOS 6
>
>
> My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every
> couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time
> if we reboot on a regular basis.
>
> The second idea was to set each filesystem
CentOS 6
Hi All:
Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with
fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except
doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to
stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been
able
24 matches
Mail list logo
