Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does
background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only?
Well I was referring to foreground fsck, and I still don't know why
running it on a mounted fs is 'bad' when
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does
background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only?
Well I was referring to foreground fsck, and I still
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does
background fsck do it? or you talking about foreground fsck only?
Well I was referring to
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Karol Kwiatkowski wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
If its bad to run fsck on a mounted read,write then why does
background fsck do it? or you talking about
Ian Smith wrote:
My knowledge of this is thin, despite reading McKusick's paper through
several times, but we're told that background fsck runs on a snapshot of
the fs concerned. How any bg fsck corrections are woven back into the
live fs later is still a mystery to me, but that's because I
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, CyberLeo Kitsana wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
My knowledge of this is thin, despite reading McKusick's paper through
several times, but we're told that background fsck runs on a snapshot of
the fs concerned. How any bg fsck corrections are woven back into the
live fs
On 20/08/07, Ian Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the repeat post folks, but I goofed last time, leaving out the
subject line while replying to the digest. Still curious .. Ian
===
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:32:28 +0200 Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Chris wrote:
On 20/08/07, Ian Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the repeat post folks, but I goofed last time, leaving out the
subject line while replying to the digest. Still curious .. Ian
===
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:32:28 +0200 Erik Trulsson
On 18/08/07, Christopher Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm having some rather strange behaviour with fsck.
When I boot the system, it asserts that all the file systems are clean,
but subsequently running an fsck on /dev/ad8s1e (mounted as /var)
detects errors.
Maybe fsck should be
Sorry for the repeat post folks, but I goofed last time, leaving out the
subject line while replying to the digest. Still curious .. Ian
===
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:32:28 +0200 Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Christopher Key wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
I'm having some rather strange behaviour with fsck.
When I boot the system, it asserts that all the file systems are clean,
but subsequently running an fsck on /dev/ad8s1e (mounted as /var)
detects errors. Even if this first check is run whilst the file system
is mounted, and is
On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:21:42PM +0100, Christopher Key wrote:
Hello,
I'm having some rather strange behaviour with fsck.
When I boot the system, it asserts that all the file systems are clean, but
subsequently running an fsck on /dev/ad8s1e (mounted as /var) detects
errors. Even if
Christopher Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm having some rather strange behaviour with fsck.
When I boot the system, it asserts that all the file systems are clean,
but subsequently running an fsck on /dev/ad8s1e (mounted as /var)
detects errors. Even if this first check is run
Bill Moran wrote:
Christopher Key [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm having some rather strange behaviour with fsck.
When I boot the system, it asserts that all the file systems are clean,
but subsequently running an fsck on /dev/ad8s1e (mounted as /var)
detects errors. Even if this
14 matches
Mail list logo
