/foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Hello, the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people watching. Ideally, if I'm in a hurry I would like to be able to do ^C on it, and I would expect that the same check is run at next boot; however, I never dare doing it. Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message to document it, like: /foo has been mounted xx times [...] check forced If you need to boot quickly, you can safely interrupt with ^C and postpone the check to the next startup. Or are there better fsck strategies? Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Saturday 03 February 2007 10:39, Enrico Zini wrote: > Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the > message to document it, like: In my experience it is safe, except when the / partition is being fsck'ed. For / it is also safe, but I've been unable to get the system to boot normally before first completing the fsck. IIRC, it will reboot and then happily start fcsk'ing again. pgp8eaG4xA2vg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/03/07 03:39, Enrico Zini wrote: > Hello, > > the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but > sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people > watching. > > Ideally, if I'm in a hurry I would like to be able to do ^C on it, and I > would expect that the same check is run at next boot; however, I never > dare doing it. > > Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message > to document it, like: > > /foo has been mounted xx times [...] check forced > If you need to boot quickly, you can safely interrupt with ^C and > postpone the check to the next startup. > > Or are there better fsck strategies? The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs to be filed against it? Also according to /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh, the existence of the file /fastboot should prevent fsck. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFxNYqS9HxQb37XmcRAnYXAJ9q9QpaaYIFXk3AWX7sIF0ox9FsQgCfRg66 9kUxXl/lO9LQwtSVlmCknN0= =VaZt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Hi, * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 20:13]: > On 02/03/07 03:39, Enrico Zini wrote: [...] > > Assuming it's safe to ^C fsck, would it make sense to change the message > > to document it, like: > > > > /foo has been mounted xx times [...] check forced > > If you need to boot quickly, you can safely interrupt with ^C and > > postpone the check to the next startup. > > > > Or are there better fsck strategies? > > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed > to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs > to be filed against it? That would be a problem since not every laptop supports apm or acpi properly. Could be also possible that needed kernel modules for this (have not checked this) are not already loaded when the script is started. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons, gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys! pgprgograK5zM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Ron Johnson wrote: > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed > to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs > to be filed against it? Assumption: This only works, if the battery module is loaded at this point. Normally acpid loads this module, which is to late in the boot process. /Armin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Hi, * Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 21:32]: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is supposed > > to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe a bug needs > > to be filed against it? > > Assumption: This only works, if the battery module is loaded at this > point. Normally acpid loads this module, which is to late in the boot > process. Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and executes programs. Kind regards Nico -- Nico Golde - http://www.ngolde.de JAB: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF Forget about that mouse with 3/4/5 buttons, gimme a keyboard with 103/104/105 keys! pgpQtEdDKJbnL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote:
> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and
> executes programs.
But the init-script does:
# As the name says. If the kernel supports modules, it'll try to load
# the ones listed in "MODULES".
load_modules() {
...
}
Regards
--
^^^| Evgeni -SargentD- Golov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
d(O_o)b | PGP-Key-ID: 0xAC15B50C
>-|-< | WWW: http://www.die-welt.net ICQ: 54116744
/ \| IRC: #sod @ irc.german-freakz.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Hello! On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100, Nico Golde wrote: > * Armin Berres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-03 21:32]: >> Ron Johnson wrote: >>> The file /etc/init.d/checkfs.sh (in package initscripts) is >>> supposed to check whether you are on battery power or not. Maybe >>> a bug needs to be filed against it? >> >> Assumption: This only works, if the battery module is loaded at >> this point. Normally acpid loads this module, which is to late in >> the boot process. > > Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and executes > programs. This is not completely true, because the Debian acpid init scripts loads modules, as per /etc/default/acpid: = # Specify modules to load on acpid's startup # MODULES may be uncommented to load "none", contain the string "all" # to load all acpi related modules or simply a space seperated list # of modules to be probed. MODULES="battery ac processor button fan thermal" = Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgpSaioLtuUhF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote: > >> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and >> executes programs. > > But the init-script does: That's what I meant. Thanks for the clarification. I can confirm the following behavior: If I boot with a stock debian kernel fsck is run even if I'm on battery. If I boot with a self compiled kernel which has the acpi modules built in, fsck isn't executed, if I'm on battery. /Armin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Hello,
Evgeni Golov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 21:45:49 +0100 Nico Golde wrote:
>
>> Acpid doesn't load modules, it only listens to events and
>> executes programs.
>
> But the init-script does:
>
> # As the name says. If the kernel supports modules, it'll try to load
> # the ones listed in "MODULES".
> load_modules() {
> ...
> }
Maybe checkfs.sh could simply run on_ac_power instead of checking if it
exists. This would enable the user to add a on_ac_power function to
/etc/defaults/rcS which is sourced by checkfs.sh. There you can write the
modprobe and relay the question to /usr/bin/ac_on_power. Or what I as a
PowerPC user would do, write there a piece of code to read the state form
the pmu.
Schöne Grüße, Jörg.
--
Unsere Zweifel sind Verräter und oft genug verspielen wir den möglichen
Gewinn, weil wir den Versuch nicht wagen.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +, Enrico Zini wrote: > Hello, > > the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but > sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people > watching. There actually is a feature in e2fsck to double the amount of mounts before an fsck is done if you're running on batteries; so unless you boot from batteries all the time, this shouldn't happen. See #205177 and #242136. You do need a mounted /proc at that time, though, which may be the reason it's not working for you. -- Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 12:50:33PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 09:39:24AM +, Enrico Zini wrote: > > Hello, > > > > the feature as in the subject is nice and makes me feel safe, but > > sometimes it hits on the laptop, when booting on batteries, with people > > watching. > > There actually is a feature in e2fsck to double the amount of mounts > before an fsck is done if you're running on batteries; so unless you > boot from batteries all the time, this shouldn't happen. See #205177 and > #242136. > > You do need a mounted /proc at that time, though, which may be the > reason it's not working for you. A mounted /proc and if ACPI has been built using modules, the ACPI battery module needs to be installed, since that's how we tell whether we are running on the AC mains or battery - tED -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 10:24:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > > You do need a mounted /proc at that time, though, which may be the > > reason it's not working for you. > A mounted /proc and if ACPI has been built using modules, the ACPI > battery module needs to be installed, since that's how we tell whether > we are running on the AC mains or battery Right. But would it actually be officially safe to interrupt with ^C ? That would give the user an opportunity to decide how in a hurry they are, and quickly get out of a difficult situation. If the answer is yes, ^C is officially safe, then I propose to add "if in a hurry, interrupt with ^C " to the "check forced" message. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 10:55:49AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > Right. But would it actually be officially safe to interrupt with ^C ? > That would give the user an opportunity to decide how in a hurry they > are, and quickly get out of a difficult situation. > > If the answer is yes, ^C is officially safe, then I propose to add "if > in a hurry, interrupt with ^C " to the "check forced" message. It's not a great idea to do this indefinitely, and it's a matter of whether or not you trust the person in front of the machine not to be in a hurry and to always type ^C all the time to avoid the e2fsck run. If the owner/administrator of the machine == the person who is normally in front of the console during the bootup (as is the case in a laptop and most single-owner machines), the obviously it should be up to the owner/admninistrator. At the moment, if you want ^C to interrupt the e2fsck and you want the boot to continue, you actually have to set the following in /etc/e2fsck.conf: [options] allow_cancellation = 1 See the e2fsck.conf(8) man page for more details. Regards, - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On 17-Feb-07, 17:55 (CST), Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the moment, if you want ^C to interrupt the e2fsck and you want the > boot to continue, you actually have to set the following in > /etc/e2fsck.conf: > > [options] > allow_cancellation = 1 > > See the e2fsck.conf(8) man page for more details. > Nifty. It would be nice if e2fsck(8) mentioned this... :-) Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Theodore Tso wrote: > > At the moment, if you want ^C to interrupt the e2fsck and you want the > boot to continue, you actually have to set the following in > /etc/e2fsck.conf: > > [options] > allow_cancellation = 1 > > See the e2fsck.conf(8) man page for more details. > > Regards, > > - Ted Is there a way to set hard and soft limit? IE, after 30 mounts, checking is strongly suggested and automatically run, but able to be canceled but after 35 it is mandatory? Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Le Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:55:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit : > > It's not a great idea to do this indefinitely, and it's a matter of > whether or not you trust the person in front of the machine not to be > in a hurry and to always type ^C all the time to avoid the e2fsck run. Hi all, how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the e2fscks skipped ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900 Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 06:55:14PM -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit : > > > > It's not a great idea to do this indefinitely, and it's a matter of > > whether or not you trust the person in front of the machine not to > > be in a hurry and to always type ^C all the time to avoid the > > e2fsck run. > > Hi all, > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the > e2fscks skipped ? Too early. You might not know that a check is due. Regards, Andrei -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. (Albert Einstein)
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900 > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the > > e2fscks skipped ? > > Too early. You might not know that a check is due. Perfect time: you already know you are in a hurry. It could be possible to use other tricks to shorten the boot cycle. I can't think of any at the moment, but that does not mean that they don't exist. Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch ext3. -- John H. Robinson, IV [EMAIL PROTECTED] (because @debian.org fails) http WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above, sbih.org ( )(:[ as apparently my cats have learned how to type. spiders.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:36:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900 > > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the > > > e2fscks skipped ? > > > > Too early. You might not know that a check is due. > > Perfect time: you already know you are in a hurry. It could be possible > to use other tricks to shorten the boot cycle. I can't think of any at > the moment, but that does not mean that they don't exist. > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > ext3. ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > > ext3. > > ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. But it is much faster. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : >> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch >> > ext3. >> >> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > But it is much faster. It is called rebuild-tree and takes much much longer. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Wednesday 21 February 2007 21:47, Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > >> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > >> > ext3. > >> > >> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > > > But it is much faster. > > It is called rebuild-tree and takes much much longer. The rebuild-tree operation is an extensive fsck operation that is not used in normal situations. OTOH not only is rebuild-tree slow but if you have a filesystem image in the filesystem (for loopback mounts) then things go horribly wrong. With Ext3 if you fsck the results are pretty much what you expect, an ext3 image in the filesystem will remain as just a single file. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://etbe.blogspot.com/ My Blog http://www.coker.com.au/sponsorship.html Sponsoring Free Software development
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 11:47:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > >> > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > >> > ext3. > >> > >> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > > > But it is much faster. > > It is called rebuild-tree and takes much much longer. And a lot, lot less likely to succeed. Be prepared to have every single file over 4K on the whole filesystem lost if there's a single inconsistency somewhere. ext3, on the other hand, is pretty damn resilient, keeping any damage quite localised. From limited anectodal evidence, I would place JFS and XFS somewhere in the middle. -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
Le mercredi 21 février 2007 à 11:47 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow a écrit : > >> ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > > > But it is much faster. > > It is called rebuild-tree and takes much much longer. Rebuild-tree is a last-measure operation when the filesystem is too corrupted for a regular fsck. You shouldn't even expect the filesystem to be as it's supposed to be after such an operation. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile.
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:36:21AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:29:46 +0900 > > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > how about a "I'm in a hurry" boot option in GRUB, which would make the > > > e2fscks skipped ? > > > > Too early. You might not know that a check is due. > > Perfect time: you already know you are in a hurry. It could be possible > to use other tricks to shorten the boot cycle. I can't think of any at > the moment, but that does not mean that they don't exist. > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > ext3. You don't *have* to do the periodic checks. If you want you can disable it using tune2fs. "tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/hdXX". The reason why ext3 has periodic checking is a *feature*, born out of the recognition that hardware is not perfect, and in fact, commodity class hardware can and does fail in various entertaining ways. By running e2fsck periodically, we hope to catch problems while they are small, instead of after massive data loss. But hey, if you know you have perfect hardware, and you do regular backups (YOU DO REGULAR BACKUPS, **RIGHT**?), hey, feel free to disable the periodic fsck's, or dial them back to a higher level. (For me, since I normally use suspend to disk/ram quite a lot on my laptop, the periodic check happens quite rarely --- except when I am rebooting a lot due to trying out lots of different kernels, but then I *want* to do the periodic checks just in case a kernel bug caused a filesystem corruption problem.) Finally, I will note that different filesystems generally get tuned to assume different use cases. XFS in particular fundamentally assumes that you are using drives (i.e., RAID at high levels) in data center conditions, and that you have a UPS to protect your system from power failures. (Yes it has a journal but the way it prevents security breaches if it's not sure the data block was written before the metadata was is to zero out the data block). Ext3 is more often used in cheap-*ss commodity equipment or for equipment with less-than-perfect drives (like laptop drives that tend to get banged around a lot when people shove the laptop into their knapsack and start walking off while the suspend-to-disk is in process), so it has a bit more paranoia about hardware designed into it. Regards, - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: /foo has been mounted xx times... check forced
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 11:14:21PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 20 février 2007 à 20:55 +0100, Mike Hommey a écrit : > > > Does XFS require fscks? Reiserfs does not. Maybe it is time to ditch > > > ext3. > > > > ReiserFS requires as much fsck as ext3. > > But it is much faster. In the worst case, when the filesystem is badly corrupted, ReiserFS will require reading every single data block off the disk, at which point it will look for every single block that *looks* like it might be part of an Reiserfs b-tree, and stich it together. The results if you have multiple Reiserfs filesystem images (for use by qemu, UML, Xen, VMware, etc.) in a resierfs filesystem, and the filesystem is badly corrupted, I will leave to you to imagine. (But a scene from from your favorite frankenstien movie might not be a bad place to start. :-) Also, reading every single data block from disk will almost certainly take longer than an ext3 filesystem check, which is one of the advantages of having a fixed inode table; ext3 knows where to start. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
