Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
Well OK, we'll let it do its job, whatever it is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:34:39AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: > My main motivation is that for years uses see > "checking" messages at boot. > > On a dentist's bill at least "checking" is separate from "treating". > > So somehow the user should be more informed about what is going on. > > Else he wonders if all that Windows defragmentation is somehow > unnecessary on Linux, and for years his disks have "passed with flying > colors"... When if fact the dentist is doing more than just looking. This is no different from Windows when it runs the CHKDSK program; it says that it's checking the disk, but it's really checking and repairing it. And none of this has anything to do with defragmentation; it has to do with dealing with potentially corrupted file systems after hardware failures/hiccups --- or if a USB thumb drive is forcibly removed in the middle of a write operation, and the flash translation's metadata is corrupted. > I really have no idea. > > I just wish > =Checking... done=== > messages were more honest. > > I just don't like my dentist to say he only "checked" when he in fact > plans to "check and maybe alter". This message has nothing to do with the fsck man page or the util-linux package. that's really a matter of the system startup scripts. But I'll note that the term "checking" has a very long history, going back decandes for Linux, Unix, as well as in MS-DOS / Windows --- so it's not even Linux / Unix. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
My main motivation is that for years uses see "checking" messages at boot. On a dentist's bill at least "checking" is separate from "treating". So somehow the user should be more informed about what is going on. Else he wonders if all that Windows defragmentation is somehow unnecessary on Linux, and for years his disks have "passed with flying colors"... When if fact the dentist is doing more than just looking. I really have no idea. I just wish =Checking... done=== messages were more honest. I'm not saying some report should be printed, or each implementation needs to give full disclosure. I just don't like my dentist to say he only "checked" when he in fact plans to "check and maybe alter". -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
One of the reasons why the fsck page is a little vague is that it's a front end progam which executes a file system specific checker program. These programs are not necessarily consistent in how they operate. The way e2fsck, which is the file system checker used for ext2, ext3, and ext4 (and so /sbin/fsck.ext2, /sbin/fsck.ext3, and /sbin/fsck.ext4, are either sym links or hard links to /sbin/e2fsck) works is that without any options, it is interactive; it will require access to a tty, and before it actually makes any changes, it will *ask* the user whether it wants to correct a particular file system corruption if it comes a cross scuh a corruption. The options -n, and -y will make e2fsck automatically answer "no", or "yes" to questions, so it can be used non-interactively --- i.e., it doesn't need access to a valid tty for input, which is the case for boot scripts. The -p/-a option for e2fsck is called "preen" mode, which will answer "yes" automatically for "safe" questions, and will exit with an error, causing the boot script to abort the boot, for "dangerous" questions that requires a system administrator's personal attention to minimize the chances of data loss. Other file system consistency checkers are sometimes a little different, although most of them handle the -y, -n, and -a/-p as described in the fsck man page since that's what the boot scripts use. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
> "TT" == Ted Ts'o writes: TT> The man page currently says: TT> "Fsck is used to check and optionally repair one or more Linux file TT> systems" TT> That's not technically correct since in actual practice is fsck with TT> no options will repair the file system. Ah ha! I would go further and put "** In actual practice is fsck with no options will repair the file system.**" on the man page. OK, no "*" perhaps. TT> This becomes clear if you read the definitions of the -y, -n, and -a/-p options. Well it stays murky for me, but so do most things. TT> So probably the best thing to do is delete the word "optionally" in TT> the above statement. Well that leaves it murky. OK thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 06:39:35AM +0800, jida...@jidanni.org wrote: > Package: util-linux > Version: 2.20.1-4 > Severity: wishlist > File: /usr/share/man/man8/fsck.8.gz > X-debbugs-cc: ty...@mit.edu > > The man page should say "by 'check' we mean that nothing will be altered > on the disk except updating the mount tally. Anything more invasive we > call 'repair'." Or something like that. It is not clear. One just guesses. The man page currently says: "Fsck is used to check and optionally repair one or more Linux file systems" That's not technically correct since in actual practice is fsck with no options will repair the file system. This becomes clear if you read the definitions of the -y, -n, and -a/-p options. So probably the best thing to do is delete the word "optionally" in the above statement. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#666460: define 'check' clearer
Package: util-linux Version: 2.20.1-4 Severity: wishlist File: /usr/share/man/man8/fsck.8.gz X-debbugs-cc: ty...@mit.edu The man page should say "by 'check' we mean that nothing will be altered on the disk except updating the mount tally. Anything more invasive we call 'repair'." Or something like that. It is not clear. One just guesses. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
