On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 03:04:48AM +0200, local10 wrote:
> Sep 28, 2019, 11:24 by bouncingc...@gmail.com:
>
> > Having read that, I don't see any admission that fsck makes any
> > changes if run without any options as it seems you did. So I
> > wonder what caused the change in the debugfs
Sep 28, 2019, 11:24 by bouncingc...@gmail.com:
> Having read that, I don't see any admission that fsck makes any
> changes if run without any options as it seems you did. So I
> wonder what caused the change in the debugfs message.
>
man wasn't available in BusyBox so I had to limit myself to
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 01:24:00 +1000
David wrote:
> Having read that, I don't see any admission that fsck makes any
> changes if run without any options as it seems you did. So I
> wonder what caused the change in the debugfs message.
I'll offer a guess. Modern disk drives have a full up
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 22:31, local10 wrote:
> Sep 28, 2019, 02:06 by loca...@tutanota.com:
> > Good advice, thanks. I have a backup drive which is almost a
> > mirror copy of the failing one, so that's why I am not very worried
> > about it. I'm going to try to fix it in a couple of days, so
Sep 28, 2019, 08:31 by loca...@tutanota.com:
> The end result:
>
Starting with the "The end result:" the email provider I use screwed up the
email formatting, in the original it was a numbered list which should've looked
something like this:
The end result:
1. fsck reports the repaired fs as
Sep 28, 2019, 02:06 by loca...@tutanota.com:
> Good advice, thanks. I have a backup drive which is almost a mirror copy of
> the failing one, so that's why I am not very worried about it. I'm going to
> try to fix it in a couple of days, so let's see how it goes.
>
So I forced fsck to run at
6 matches
Mail list logo
