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
> >
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
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
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 wa
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,
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
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 T
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
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:
> > Hel
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 shou
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 f
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 che
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. Ev
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 hence
14 matches
Mail list logo
