Thanks, Robert.
Robert Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
L Goodwin writes:
> I accidentally pushed the POWER button instead of the CD-ROM door
> open/close button and turned the computer off. In my defense, the
> power button is right next to it AND has a hair trigger. :-(
>
> I turned the c
Yes, it's a hardware switch and a very bad design. It's flush with the surface
of the faceplate and is right next to the CD-ROM button. Also sensitive to the
lightest touch. Replacement would require buying a new case (not in budget).
Think I'll make a clear plexi "failsafe" cover. Reminds me of
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
L Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Last night, I was starting to install Samba3, but wrong FreeBSD disc
> (2) in the CD-ROM drive (first package to install on disc 1). After
> placing the right disc in the drive, I accidentally pushed the POWER
> button
Thanks, Garrett.
Ran "fsck -y /usr"
* FILE SYSTEM MARKED CLEAN *
* FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *
Upon reboot, all is well EXCEPT for the following 2 warnings:
---
Mounting loc
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, L Goodwin wrote:
[...]
I assume I'll have to run fsck on /usr, but have 2 questions:
1) Is this problem caused by yesterday's accidental power-off?
Yes, most likely.
2) What prompts should I expect from fsck, and how should I reply to each in
order to resolve this prob
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:31:30AM +0100, Peter Schuller wrote:
> Do soft updates, or do they not, algorithmically guarantee filesystem
> meta-data consistency in the event of a crash?
If you have a power failure or similar unclean shutdown, then SU
guarantees consistency. If there is a kernel
Peter Schuller wrote:
Hello,
What's the deal with soft updates and guaranteed consistency? Every time
journaling is brought up by someone, he/she is promptly told about how soft
updates does the job at least as well. I never had a problem with this based
on what I have read about soft updates.
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:58:34PM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> The filesystem is always ok during the normal boot-time fsck run, so I'm
> wondering whether this is normal, or if the fs is screwed. Attached is
> the output of fsck(8) run in multiuser (postfix was running).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2003-06-14 12:58:34 +0200:
> Attached is the output of fsck(8) run in multiuser (postfix was
> running).
Aaargh, I keep doing this. This time, it's really attached.
--
If you cc me or remove the list(s) completely I'll most likely ignore
your message.see http://www.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:21:39AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> Unfortunately the answer presented itself very soon after posting the
> message.
>
> I pulled the hard drive out of the box, and tried to format it in a
> Windows machine. It occurred to me that the drive had not been formated
> and
Unfortunately the answer presented itself very soon after posting the
message.
I pulled the hard drive out of the box, and tried to format it in a
Windows machine. It occurred to me that the drive had not been formated
and therefore had not had data written to all parts of the disk.
Half way thr
>> 2) Are there any BSD tools for reading the SMART data off the Hard Disk
>> so that I can see whether it is about to fail or currently experiencing
>> HW failure. Any other ways to check for bad sectors?
>>
JH> I thought that someone asked this same questions a few days ago, but I
JH> can't fin
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Vinco Maldini wrote:
>
> > 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I
> > clean the FS?)
> >
> [ ... snip ... ]
> > CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928
> > UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
> [ ... snip ... ]
> >
> > THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT B
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Vinco Maldini wrote:
> 1) What does the result below mean? (Is my drive failing? Why can't I
> clean the FS?)
>
[ ... snip ... ]
> CANNOT READ: BLK 152744928
> UNEXPECTED SOFT UPDATE INCONSISTENCY
[ ... snip ... ]
>
> THE FOLLOWING DISK SECTORS COULD NOT BE READ: 152744946,
[
14 matches
Mail list logo
