subject:"Skipping fsck during boot with systemd\?"

On 12/30/2014 5:37 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 On Lu, 29 dec 14, 22:06:55, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

 No, from what I've seen, the default is to do preventative fscks,
 depending on the number of boots (and time? I'm not sure).  
 
 Could you please show us where you've seen this? For the record, again, 
 from the e2fsprogs changelog:
 

Multiple times in on this mailing list.

 
 e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low
 ...
   * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
   extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
   system checks disabled.
 ...
  -- Theodore Y. Ts'o ty...@mit.edu  Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400
 
 Of course, if you have filesystems created with earlier e2fsprogs you'll 
 still have the periodic checks enabled, but they are easy to disable 
 with tune2fs.
 
 Kind regards,
 Andrei
 

This is the first time I've seen this fix.  I've seen other means of
using tune2fs, such as setting to a high number and resetting the count
on each reboot.  But I hadn't seen that it could be disabled this way.

This fixes my immediate problem.  But as I've said before - there are
other reasons my clients don't like the way Debian is going, and the
decision has already been made to look at another distro.  And I have to
be developing on the same distros they are using.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a2b241.5030...@gmail.com

Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

2014-12-30 Thread Don Armstrong

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now.
 They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will
 probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for
 production.

If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just stay
with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider contributing
developer time (or your time) to the continued support of SysV in
jessie+1 (and beyond.)

If they want to stick with wheezy for other reasons, they should help
make squeeze LTS a success so people are more likely to also contribute
to wheezy LTS when it is inevitably EOLed by the stable security team.

If it's something else that bothers them, the way to influence Debian is
to do the work.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

Cheop's Law: Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget.
 -- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p242


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141230144546.gb11...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

2014-12-30 Thread The Wanderer

On 12/30/2014 at 09:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:

 On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros
 now. They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It
 will probably take two years for them to get another distro ready
 for production.
 
 If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just
 stay with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider
 contributing developer time (or your time) to the continued support
 of SysV in jessie+1 (and beyond.)

Take care about what configuration to use in sticking with sysvinit in
jessie, though. I run two main Debian systems; on one of them I've
installed sysvinit-core+systemd-shim and removed systemd-the-package
(and all reverse dependencies, of course), and on the other I've
installed sysvinit-core+systemd-shim and left libpam-systemd (and all
dependencies) in place - and I have seen behavior changes in at least
the latter case. (I think I've seen some changes in both cases, but I've
changed the installed-package configuration on the former machine since
then, so I can't swear those changes are still present.)

Just yesterday, I rebooted the computer with libpam-systemd present (and
thus systemd-logind active) for the first time since the switch, and
I've already noted two particular behavior changes which I find
bothersome:

* When I launch X from tty1 with 'startx', it now appears to run on tty1
itself instead of on the more traditional tty7 - which has the practical
effect that it's no longer possible to kill X by shifting to tty1 and
hitting Ctrl-C, which is an emergency break-out measure I've found
necessary or at least convenient in the past. There are probably ways to
reconfigure things to prevent this behavior change (I think I've seen
such mentioned here on-list in the past), but that is the behavior which
seems to result from the default configuration.

* When I boot to the text console to log in, there are messages from
logind printed prior to login which clutter the console (and step all
over the actual login prompt), and more printed after hitting Enter on
the password prompt to actually log in. If there are ways to prevent
this behavior change without muting potentially-desirable (new) logging
activity entirely, I'm not aware of them.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

On 12/30/2014 9:45 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I should also add - that's why they are looking at other distros now.
 They are planning to stay on Wheezy as long as possible. It will
 probably take two years for them to get another distro ready for
 production.
 
 If switching to systemd is their main concern, then they can just stay
 with SysV for jessie. They should probably also consider contributing
 developer time (or your time) to the continued support of SysV in
 jessie+1 (and beyond.)
 
 If they want to stick with wheezy for other reasons, they should help
 make squeeze LTS a success so people are more likely to also contribute
 to wheezy LTS when it is inevitably EOLed by the stable security team.
 
 If it's something else that bothers them, the way to influence Debian is
 to do the work.
 

Don, that's a good, but impractical idea.  The people there have enough
to do at work, and like to have a life outside of work.  Believer it or
not, not everyone is capable (or interested) in spending their life
working on Linux.

And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make the
investment in switching.  Better to do it now, when they have time, than
later when they find out they have to switch quickly.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a30351.4040...@gmail.com

Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

2014-12-30 Thread Don Armstrong

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
 outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
 interested) in spending their life working on Linux.

If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people
to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone
who is serious about using Debian in production does this.

If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous
people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they
(or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund,
contact lea...@debian.org.

 And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make
 the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time,
 than later when they find out they have to switch quickly.

If they have already decided to switch, then they should start
contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

unbeingdead isn't beingalive
 -- e.e. cummings 31 _73 Poems_


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141230224936.gb29...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

2014-12-30 Thread Joel Rees

On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:49 AM, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
interested) in spending their life working on Linux.

If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people
to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them.

I have to admit, this is a thought that has been on my mind lately.

Pretty much everyone
who is serious about using Debian in production does this.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's exactly true, for some defintions
of serious.

Lots of companies think they are serious about using Linux, but not
feeding their profits back upstream.

On the contrary, they tend to be trying to use the (imaginary, but
much touted) cost differential as a competitive wedge, pushing down
their profits and squeezing the market. Killing the goose that laid
the golden egg.

Not facing up to the freedom vs. zero (initial) cost dillemma. Not
really serious even though they are seriously thinking they are
serious.

(Yeah, I'm sort of looking at myself in the mirror, as an individual.
I don't contribute as much as I should because it has been too easy to
get distracted, playing with all the zero initial cost stuff.)

If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous
people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they
(or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund,
contact lea...@debian.org.

And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make
the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time,
than later when they find out they have to switch quickly.

If they have already decided to switch, then they should start
contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to.

And I'm thinking that, if more of the people who think they are
serious about FOSS had been taking the duties of freedom more
seriously, the systemd debacle might have been avoided. (By making
more work generalizing the several init approaches publically
available, and by making the inits more interchangeable, more
manageable by people who don't have time to learn shell scripting --
although managers scared of learning programming languages is yet
another manifestation of the problem.)

I'm moving to openbsd partly to make sure I start contributing. (Also
because I see too many devs in the debian community who either don't
want to learn programming or whose ideas about programming are
diametrically opposed to what I think is my experience.)

--
Joel Rees

Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart,
and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iP0EDsyHXVN2LGKQvbW+wv7Gjw_DtzkD8MU0O=4vb3...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
 On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
 outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
 interested) in spending their life working on Linux.
 
 If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people
 to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone
 who is serious about using Debian in production does this.


That's a great idea.  Who's going to pay these people - you?

My clients are not IT folks.  They don't need Debian per say - they DO
need Linux.  And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for
software implementations.

 If they (or anyone else) is interested in doing this, there are numerous
 people who could be hired straight off of the consultants list. If they
 (or anyone else) is having a hard time finding contributors to fund,
 contact lea...@debian.org.


And you're going to pay those consultants, right?

 And they are concerned enough with the way Debian is moving to make
 the investment in switching. Better to do it now, when they have time,
 than later when they find out they have to switch quickly.
 
 If they have already decided to switch, then they should start
 contributing to whatever distribution they're going to switch to.
 

And you're going to pay for these consultants?

Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies.  They are
manufacturers of equipment.  Right now, Debian just happens to be the
distribution they are using.  Yes, they have a couple of people familiar
with Linux administration, but that's about it.  And these administering
Linux is only a very small part of their job.  That's why they hire
people like me to write specific device drivers and other software.  But
they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS.

They could use pretty much any distro.  They liked Debian because of its
stability.  But they don't NEED Debian.  If they wanted to spend lots of
time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a357df.6030...@gmail.com

Fwd: Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

2014-12-30 Thread William Unruh


On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
 On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
 outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
 interested) in spending their life working on Linux.
 
 If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people
 to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone
 who is serious about using Debian in production does this.


That's a great idea.  Who's going to pay these people - you?

They apparently pay you.
Who pays the hardware people who design the boards/etc? 


My clients are not IT folks.  They don't need Debian per say - they DO
need Linux.  And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for
software implementations.

Fair enough, but then if it is critical to their business, they will
have to pay. 

...

Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies.  They are
manufacturers of equipment.  Right now, Debian just happens to be the

But now adays, software it the largest part of an equipment business. To
say they do not have software people is to say they do not have a
business. 

distribution they are using.  Yes, they have a couple of people familiar
with Linux administration, but that's about it.  And these administering
Linux is only a very small part of their job.  That's why they hire
people like me to write specific device drivers and other software.  But
they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS.

But they need to adapt the software for their use. 
That is a critical part of their business. In fact it is the part that
sets them apart from all their competitors. Hardware is easy these days. 


They could use pretty much any distro.  They liked Debian because of its
stability.  But they don't NEED Debian.  If they wanted to spend lots of
time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware.

Whether Debian is the best choice for them is of course something they
will have to decide. It is modular, stable, conservative, old
fashioned,... 

??? 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20141231030747.c153710f...@wormhole.physics.ubc.ca

Re: Fwd: Re: Continuing to use SysV; LTS [Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?]

On 12/30/2014 10:07 PM, William Unruh wrote:

 On 12/30/2014 5:49 PM, Don Armstrong wrote:
 On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 The people there have enough to do at work, and like to have a life
 outside of work. Believer it or not, not everyone is capable (or
 interested) in spending their life working on Linux.

 If Debian is important to their business, then they should hire people
 to work on the bits of Debian that matter to them. Pretty much everyone
 who is serious about using Debian in production does this.


 That's a great idea.  Who's going to pay these people - you?
 
 They apparently pay you.
 Who pays the hardware people who design the boards/etc? 


Yes, they pay me because the device drivers are custom (and
proprietary).  Nothing exists in public or other private hands.

And they have EE's who design the electronics.  But that is a different
division.

You seem to think money is unending.  It isn't, believe me.  They have
budgets, and must stay within them.  There is no money available to hire
consultants to maintain a distro.

Of course, there's another option (and only one other one).  The company
could go out of business.  Then the problem would go away.


 My clients are not IT folks.  They don't need Debian per say - they DO
 need Linux.  And, like all companies, they have a limited budget for
 software implementations.
 
 Fair enough, but then if it is critical to their business, they will
 have to pay. 
 

You don't get it, do you.  THERE IS NO MONEY TO PAY!

 ...

 Again - these companies are not NOT IT companies.  They are
 manufacturers of equipment.  Right now, Debian just happens to be the
 
 But now adays, software it the largest part of an equipment business. To
 say they do not have software people is to say they do not have a
 business. 
 

Maybe YOUR businesses.  Not all, by any means.  And in these companies,
software is only a very SMALL part of their business.  Even the
electronics is a small part of the business.  The money is in the
equipment being controlled.

 distribution they are using.  Yes, they have a couple of people familiar
 with Linux administration, but that's about it.  And these administering
 Linux is only a very small part of their job.  That's why they hire
 people like me to write specific device drivers and other software.  But
 they are not going to spend money hiring consultants to work on the OS.
 
 But they need to adapt the software for their use. 
 That is a critical part of their business. In fact it is the part that
 sets them apart from all their competitors. Hardware is easy these days. 
 

Electronic hardware is easy.  But that isn't these company's business.
That what you guys don't understand.

Consider an automobile.  It has a computer to control the car.  But that
computer is maybe a $500 part in a $35K machine.  Sure, new cars NEED
that computer.  But it is one of the least important parts of the car.
The engine, body, interior, handling and a couple of dozen other things
are much more important to the buyer.  And that's where the money goes.
 The computer is the minimum necessary to do the job.

Although my clients are not automobile manufacturers, the comparison
applies.


 They could use pretty much any distro.  They liked Debian because of its
 stability.  But they don't NEED Debian.  If they wanted to spend lots of
 time trying to maintain the OS, they would have gone to slackware.
 
 Whether Debian is the best choice for them is of course something they
 will have to decide. It is modular, stable, conservative, old
 fashioned,... 
 
 ??? 
 
 

And its continued stability is seriously being questions.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a372f9.4060...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be, is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.
 
 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric
 

This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a13e95.9060...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread Ric Moore


On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:

On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:

On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but
since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.


Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
for it.


I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
problem
:)


Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?


Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be, is an
entirely different question.

Lisi




Lisi,

While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
appreciate people trying to help out.

And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
every one has made the decision to switch yet.


What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.



Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
software they are.


Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
better.



Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
will happen at the worst possible time.


Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric



This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.


There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. 
When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO 
not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it 
is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as 
the process is for your own good.


It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows 
server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite 
awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it 
and suffered. I know I did.


But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process 
half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a 
feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a19d2f.1040...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread Ric Moore


On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.


I don't think I'm the only one complaining about this Saint Jude lost 
cause. If only we put as much effort into World Peace. :) Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a19def.3010...@gmail.com

Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread William Unruh

Path: 
eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com
Newsgroups: linux.debian.user
Subject: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 19:50:02 +0100
Message-ID: ocnya-7vl...@gated-at.bofh.it
References: ou9hz-41...@gated-at.bofh.it owhrk-1al...@gated-at.bofh.it 
oca3m-6x...@gated-at.bofh.it ock37-5oc...@gated-at.bofh.it 
ocojs-3x...@gated-at.bofh.it occjn-7w...@gated-at.bofh.it 
ochj5-70u...@gated-at.bofh.it
X-Original-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Old-Return-Path: wayward4...@gmail.com
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.989 tagged_above=-1 required=5.3 
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 
FOURLA=0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL=0.01] 
autolearn=ham
X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -7
Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;d=gmail.com; 
s=20120113;
h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to 
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=Ct1vvY2fbx8jBh/Hc08uYClnwRaNmlKmpDbl26M7OqE=;
b=JAXOXJAZ3U/Bm+eIr4nIgh8hAWfLsYidoczlzuVR+Iyp/I+AO1G1JH39g/pQzpcT5z 
VXLthqUKXFlOrAgxz1EV1kUnYHrIZkM5Bbrfm7/eh+OvTCLoEVMwSuY0cqjksvsTqJzW 
5XKVw41ojQzZdxugMfZ9RBe8axd+qbXKoIlubdNIF8GSeRvMn2iWd9UfBdD3Bvmi3bkp 
QCVM+9qaftzjaHlM1wmX8mk3J34zO4IA6SCb8iReo+bkoPf8VI46cbrZ3zRNCjB9eVqW 
UAe3lCdSS4VOP88x0V7zZRqtb/tp1J47opwR9Ca460b0sioA1UkN4WMZ9q/mVKT5cP6V 
ecjw==
X-Received: by 10.67.3.100 with SMTP id bv4mr74736371pad.15.1419877803735;  
  Mon, 29 Dec 2014 10:30:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailing-List: debian-user@lists.debian.org archive/latest/685146
List-ID: debian-user.lists.debian.org
List-URL: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it
Lines: 105
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:27:59 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID: 54a19d2f.1040...@gmail.com
X-Original-References: 20141205190650.09a44...@ron.cerrocora.org 
5489ea5c.9030...@gmail.com 
20141227192020.0c672b297977b244762d3...@gmail.com 
201412281054.24677.lisi.re...@gmail.com 54a028b1.9020...@gmail.com 
54a0f323.5050...@gmail.com 54a13e95.9060...@gmail.com
Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org linux.debian.user:140641

On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

...

 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.

 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.

 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric

 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.

There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. 
When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO 
not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it 
is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as 
the process is for your own good.

It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows 
server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread Marc Auslander

Long ago, I decided that inconvenient fsck's were not what I
needed. And that cancelling them was not an option - I run quasi
headless so there's no way.

So - I use tune2fs to set a ridiculous reboot count for automatic
fsck.  Then a run a cron job the does a reboot with the -F option once
a month in the middle of the night when I don't need the machine.

systemd won't change a thing for me.

cron job follows.  it actually checks for a disk that needs an fsck.

#!/bin/bash
#check for fsck needed and force it and reboot if needed
[ $1 = -force ]  force=yes
month=$(date +%b)
reboot=no
while read disk rest
do
lastfsck=$(tune2fs -l $disk | grep 'Last checked:')
lastfsck=${lastfsck:30:3}
[ $lastfsck = $month ] || reboot=yes
done  --end
$(df | egrep '^/dev')
--end
if [ $force != yes ]
then
[ $reboot = no ]  exit
if [ -n $(who) ]
then
echo 'Not rebooting because of logged on users'
who
exit
fi
fi
echo 'checkfsck rebooting' | mail -s checkfsck root
# -F below forces check of all filesystems, not just root
echo 'checkfsck rebooting'
shutdown -rF now
sleep 120
echo 'shutdown seems to be broken again'
shutdown -nrF now
sleep 120
echo 'shutdown -n seems to have failed'
sleep 120
touch /forcefsck
sync;sync;sync;sleep 60;reboot -f
sleep 120
echo 'it just wont die - need help'


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87sifyuj5f@aptiva.optonline.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 1:31 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.
 
 I don't think I'm the only one complaining about this Saint Jude lost
 cause. If only we put as much effort into World Peace. :) Ric
 

You're the only one complaining about those of us who don't like it
trying to help each other out.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a20542.8040...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
 but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
 solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
 instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
 is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric


 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.
 
 There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
 When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
 not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
 is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
 the process is for your own good.


I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
completely different story.

 It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
 server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
 awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
 and suffered. I know I did.
 

It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?

 But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
 half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
 feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric
 
 
 

I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
has on Debian.

Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.

And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking
for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this.  And we're
talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controllers.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of

Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread William Unruh

On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
 but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
 solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
 instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
 is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric


 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.
 
 There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
 When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
 not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
 is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
 the process is for your own good.


I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
completely different story.

 It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
 server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
 awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
 and suffered. I know I did.
 

It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?

 But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
 half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
 feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric
 
 
 

I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
has on Debian.

Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.

And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking
for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this.  And we're
talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controllers.


That seems to be cutting off you nose to spite your face. As many have
told you, the default

Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
 but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
 solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
 instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
 is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric


 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.

 There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
 When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
 not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
 is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
 the process is for your own good.


 I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
 PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
 completely different story.

 It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
 server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
 awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
 and suffered. I know I did.


 It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
 make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
 project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
 consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
 thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

 Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?

 But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
 half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
 feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric




 I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
 this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
 has on Debian.

 Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
 NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.

 And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

 But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking
 for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this.  And we're
 talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controllers.

 
 That seems to be cutting off you

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-29 Thread Ric Moore


On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:

On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:

On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
but
since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.


Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
for it.


I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
problem
:)


Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
solve the
core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
instead
of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?


Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
is an
entirely different question.

Lisi




Lisi,

While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
appreciate people trying to help out.

And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
every one has made the decision to switch yet.


What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.



Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
software they are.


Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
better.



Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
will happen at the worst possible time.


Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric



This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
you started complaining about the thread.


There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
the process is for your own good.



I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
completely different story.


It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
and suffered. I know I did.



It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?


But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric





I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
has on Debian.

Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.


Running ext4, the only time it has run fsck for me is when it had to. 
Otherwise I run it manually just to be sure.



And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking
for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this.  And we're
talking a lot of Debian systems running in

Re: Fwd: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 9:33 PM, William Unruh wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
 but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
 solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
 instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
 is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric


 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least until
 you started complaining about the thread.

 There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
 When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
 not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
 is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
 the process is for your own good.


 I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
 PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
 completely different story.

 It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
 server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
 awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
 and suffered. I know I did.


 It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
 make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
 project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
 consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
 thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

 Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?

 But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
 half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
 feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric




 I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
 this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
 has on Debian.

 Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
 NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.

 And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

 But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking
 for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this.  And we're
 talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controllers.

 
 That seems to be cutting off you

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/29/2014 10:05 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I
 get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible,
 but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to
 complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy
 for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the
 problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really
 solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram)
 instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be,
 is an
 entirely different question.

 Lisi



 Lisi,

 While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution,
 I do
 appreciate people trying to help out.

 And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not
 going to
 happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
 looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
 every one has made the decision to switch yet.

 What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of
 years?? I
 haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I
 have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a
 Tbyte of
 storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


 Not as easy as you think.  I write device drivers; for instance, one of
 my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems.  Right now
 they
 are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro.  It's not
 something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time
 before service is dropped for Wheezy.  And I need to be running the
 same
 software they are.

 Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete
 dist-upgrade to
 Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients
 without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know
 better.


 Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown?  But this is
 the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install.
 It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later.  And Murphy says it
 will happen at the worst possible time.

 Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric


 This is a Debian User list.  Why don't you want bugs which affect
 Debian
 users discussed here?  And that's what I have seen here - at least
 until
 you started complaining about the thread.

 There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature.
 When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting DO
 not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!. Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it
 is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as
 the process is for your own good.


 I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A
 PROBLEM.  A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a
 completely different story.

 It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows
 server HAD to go down at 3AM for maintenance (defrag, which took quite
 awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it
 and suffered. I know I did.


 It can be a HUGE problem.  For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to
 make a presentation to a VP of a client's company.  The success of this
 project depends on my presentation being more successful than another
 consultants.  fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of
 thousands of dollars over the course of the contract.

 Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss?

 But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process
 half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a
 feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric




 I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time.  Windows allows
 this, and terminates the defrag gracefully.  That's one thing Windows
 has on Debian.

 Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does
 NOT mean it's ok for everyone else.
 
 Running ext4, the only time it has run fsck for me is when it had to.
 Otherwise I run it manually just to be sure.
 
 And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening.

 But it will probably not matter to me, anyway.  My clients are looking

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-28 Thread Lisi Reisz

On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
  On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
   On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
   I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
   10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
   another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but
   since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.
  
   Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.
 
  I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem
  :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be, is an 
entirely different question.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412281054.24677.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-28 Thread Jerry Stuckle

On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
 On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
 10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
 another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but
 since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.

 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem
 :)

 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?
 
 Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.
 
 A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be, is an 
 entirely different question.
 
 Lisi
 
 

Lisi,

While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
appreciate people trying to help out.

And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
every one has made the decision to switch yet.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a028b1.9020...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-28 Thread Ric Moore


On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:

On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500

Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:

On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get
10-15 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e.
another presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but
since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.


Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.


I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem
:)


Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?


Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it.

A facility that was available no longer is.  Whether it should be, is an
entirely different question.

Lisi




Lisi,

While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, I do
appreciate people trying to help out.

And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not going to
happen.  So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm
looking at other options.  My clients are looking, also, although not
every one has made the decision to switch yet.


What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of years?? I 
haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I 
have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a Tbyte of 
storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds.


Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete dist-upgrade to 
Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients 
without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know 
better.


Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric





--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a0f323.5050...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-27 Thread Celejar

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
  On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

  I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
  minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
  presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
  time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.
  
  Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.
  
  
 
 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :)

Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?

Celejar


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20141227192020.0c672b297977b244762d3...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-27 Thread Jerry Stuckle

On 12/27/2014 7:20 PM, Celejar wrote:
 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500
 Jerry Stuckle stuckleje...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
 presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
 time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.



 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :)
 
 Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really solve the
 core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) instead
 of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled?
 
 Celejar
 
 

That's a fine idea if I'm booted into that OS previously.  But I have
several development systems on here I use for client work, and the OS I
use for presentations is pretty vanilla.  The last thing I need is to
find out just before a presentation that I screwed up a device driver
and the OS won't boot :)

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/549f59b7.70...@gmail.com

Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-22 Thread alberto fuentes

 Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
 So I think this deserves a bug report.

 Don't get carried away and start typing.

 #758902


Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more

Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem
to be willing to budge... go figure

cheers


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5497e2c1.6060...@gmail.com

Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-22 Thread Bob Holtzman

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
  Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
  So I think this deserves a bug report.
 
  Don't get carried away and start typing.
 
  #758902
 
 
 Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more
 
 Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem
 to be willing to budge... go figure

Why doesn't this surprise me?

-- 
Bob Holtzman
Giant intergalactic brain-sucking hyperbacteria 
came to Earth to rape our women and create a race 
of mindless zombies.  Look!  It's working!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141222185855.ga11...@cox.net

Re: Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-22 Thread Brian

On Mon 22 Dec 2014 at 11:58:55 -0700, Bob Holtzman wrote:

 On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:22:09AM +0100, alberto fuentes wrote:
   Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable if you ask me.
   So I think this deserves a bug report.
  
   Don't get carried away and start typing.
  
   #758902
  
  
  Yeah, This bug is bound to bite everybody at least one... probably more
  
  Severity of this regresion bug is wishlist and maintainer doesn't seem
  to be willing to budge... go figure
 
 Why doesn't this surprise me?

Because you haven't thought it through?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014101906.gp19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-15 Thread Rick Thomas


On Dec 13, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com wrote:

 15 seconds extra, a couple times a year isn't all THAT bad.
 
 FWIW, I think I found out why ext4 fsck's faster than ext3 (or the other
 exts).  Seems ext4 only checks the part of the filesystem that's been
 used/writtento/etc. instead of the entire filesystem/partition.

Yes, that’s the secret sauce.  There was a paper (in Usenix FAST, I think) 
about what’s new in ext4.

My own experience is with ext4 filesystems of up to 6 TB.  The application is 
radio station automation.  A half hour show is about 600GB, so lots of very big 
files.  Total time to do a full fsck is under two minutes.  It can be 
nerve-wracking when the station is down because the server decided to reboot 
and do an fsck, but it’s *way* better than it used to be with ext3!

Rick

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d85313ea-3170-4afe-91f0-f605f8965...@pobox.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-14 Thread Arele

El Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 09:45:33PM +0200, Andrei POPESCU escribió:
 On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
  
  I don't know how effective this check is though.  But I've NEVER had a
  dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it
  is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the
  205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this.
  Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought
  about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole
  shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't.
 
 If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)

Totally agree

 
 Kind regards,
 Andrei
 -- 
 http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
 Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141214075318.GA2882@hopelux

Re: xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)

2014-12-14 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote:
 
 Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
 scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
 I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
 which struck me as reliable.

As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should 
probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly 
impact your application.

I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out 
of the box in most scenarios and to keep my installations as simple as 
possible as it's unlikely I would feel any real difference by switching 
to another filesystem.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)

2014-12-14 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh

On Sun, 14 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 On Sb, 13 dec 14, 18:38:36, The Wanderer wrote:
  Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
  scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
  I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
  which struck me as reliable.
 
 As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should 
 probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly 
 impact your application.

XFS is slower than ext4 on certain metadata-heavy workloads, and faster in
multiple-stream workloads.  It also scales better than ext4 on very big
filesystems.  It is, however, more memory-hungry.

I use it extensively wherever I don't expect more than one crash an year.
Otherwise, I go with ext4 (better fsck).

 I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out 
 of the box in most scenarios and to keep my installations as simple as 
 possible as it's unlikely I would feel any real difference by switching 
 to another filesystem.

Agreed.

-- 
  One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141214124727.ga1...@khazad-dum.debian.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Curt

On 2014-12-12, Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:

 You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some
 more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ),


He also says nothing about what forced him to reinstall so many times, nor
why he concludes it is due to an absence of fsck file system checks,
thus adding another infuriating zero to his concatenation of zeroes, I guess. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnm8o3k5.2c9.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Elimar Riesebieter

* Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:

[...] I prefer to manually fsck.  Easier.  I just do this as root before
 shutdown -r now:
 
 touch /forcefsck
 
 On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
 forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot.

shutdown(8)

..
   -f Skip fsck on reboot.

   -F Force fsck on reboot.
..


Elimar
-- 
 Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
  can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213103714.ga2...@galadriel.home.lxtec.de

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Joel Rees

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de wrote:
 * Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:

 [...] I prefer to manually fsck.  Easier.  I just do this as root before
 shutdown -r now:

 touch /forcefsck

 On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
 forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot.

 shutdown(8)

 ..
-f Skip fsck on reboot.

-F Force fsck on reboot.
 ..


 Elimar
 --
  Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
   can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-)

Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.

:-p

-- 
Joel Rees

Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart,
and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iPk8m_5_L9B-kUiOgDcrNigOdHmBjMg3st=7cuwxye...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Brian

On Sat 13 Dec 2014 at 20:26:02 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:

 On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de wrote:
  * Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
 
  [...] I prefer to manually fsck.  Easier.  I just do this as root before
  shutdown -r now:
 
  touch /forcefsck
 
  On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
  forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot.
 
  shutdown(8)
 
  ..
 -f Skip fsck on reboot.
 
 -F Force fsck on reboot.
  ..
 
 
  Elimar
  --
   Never make anything simple and efficient when a way
can be found to make it complex and wonderful ;-)
 
 Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.

Pssst. Don't be too surprised at not finding either option in the Jessie
manual.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213120132.gi19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Gian Uberto Lauri

Joel Rees writes:
  On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de 
  wrote:
   shutdown(8)
  
  -F Force fsck on reboot.
  
  Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.

By the way the -F flag causes /forcefsck to appear 

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21644.23491.322245.972...@mail.eng.it

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Jape Person


On 12/13/2014 10:31 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:

Joel Rees writes:
   On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Elimar Riesebieter riese...@lxtec.de 
wrote:
shutdown(8)
   
   -F Force fsck on reboot.
  
   Sshhh. Don't remind us to read the man pages.

By the way the -F flag causes /forcefsck to appear 


Speaking of which...

When I do the # touch /forcefsck and reboot, fsck runs properly and 
writes its results to the journal. However, the results are preceded by 
a warning line which suggests using fsck.mode=force, which doesn't 
work for forcing fsck to run as desired on remote systems (at least not 
without some digging and fiddling).


That begs the question of whether or not use of /forcefsck is going to 
stop working at some point. Hence my switch to use of the tune2fs 
solution, which works perfectly.


Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of 
/forcefsck?


JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548c6a6c.4020...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Curt

On 2014-12-13, Jape Person jap...@comcast.net wrote:

 Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of 
 /forcefsck?


I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it
might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route, which avoids
writing to a potentially corrupted file system.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnm8otla.2c9.cu...@einstein.electron.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Jape Person


On 12/13/2014 12:26 PM, Curt wrote:

On 2014-12-13, Jape Person jap...@comcast.net wrote:


Would anyone happen to know if plans are afoot to eliminate use of
/forcefsck?



I haven't the slightest idea, but I read somewhere recently that it
might be preferable to go the kernel parameter route, which avoids
writing to a potentially corrupted file system.




I hadn't considered that. It certainly makes sense. Writing to a file 
system that you're checking to be sure it's not corrupted is actually 
kind of a weird thing to do, isn't it?


That actually makes a point about current standards and practices not 
necessarily making sense -- even if they are what we're accustomed to using.


JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548c849c.7030...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Patrick Bartek

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Elimar Riesebieter wrote:

 * Patrick Bartek nemomm...@gmail.com [2014-12-12 20:07 -0800]:
 
 [...] I prefer to manually fsck.  Easier.  I just do this as root
 before
  shutdown -r now:
  
  touch /forcefsck
  
  On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
  forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot.
 
 shutdown(8)
 
 ..
-f Skip fsck on reboot.
 
-F Force fsck on reboot.
 ..

Those shutdown options are no longer available or work in
Testing/Jessie. Tested.  Generates error and returns user to command
line without shutting down. However, forcefsck method works.

Tried to make my reply specific for Jessie since the thread originally
was.  These options are still available with Wheezy, and, I assume,
prior Debian releases.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213103050.19409...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
 
 I don't know how effective this check is though.  But I've NEVER had a
 dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it
 is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the
 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this.
 Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought
 about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole
 shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't.

If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

xfs and other filesystems (was Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?)

2014-12-13 Thread The Wanderer

On 12/13/2014 at 02:45 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

 On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
 
 I don't know how effective this check is though.  But I've NEVER
 had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice
 thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5
 seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't
 actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO
 quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat
 there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I
 don't.
 
 If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)

What are the downsides of xfs, in overview summary form?

Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
scenarios, but I don't know how it stacks up in general-purpose use, and
I've never run across an accounting of its disadvantages in a context
which struck me as reliable.

Beyond just xfs, I'd also be interested in the same sort of information
(downsides - or more like really trade-offs - and suitability for
general-purpose use) for other not-so-typical filesystems. I've never
been entirely happy with just defaulting to extX for most filesystems
every time I build a new machine, but the last time I did a build with
something else it was reiserfs, and that wound up having problems in the
long run - not to mention ending up relatively unsupported, AFAIK, given
the fate of its namesake and primary developer.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-13 Thread Patrick Bartek

On Sat, 13 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

 On Vi, 12 dec 14, 20:07:26, Patrick Bartek wrote:
  
  I don't know how effective this check is though.  But I've NEVER
  had a dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice
  thing is it is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5
  seconds, and the 205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't
  actually time this. Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO
  quick. Never thought about that until today when I actually sat
  there and watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I
  don't.
 
 If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)

15 seconds extra, a couple times a year isn't all THAT bad.

FWIW, I think I found out why ext4 fsck's faster than ext3 (or the other
exts).  Seems ext4 only checks the part of the filesystem that's been
used/writtento/etc. instead of the entire filesystem/partition.

B


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213164039.13973...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Mart van de Wege

Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca writes:

 users equally well.  If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
 time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.

 The issue goes beyond fsck.  It's important to be able to interrupt
 various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
 during boot.

Well, get ready for some disappointment then, because that plain isn't 
possible.

Most operations will be cancellable, but there will always exist
operations that can't be cancelled, by design or by accident.

-- 
We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes.
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86a92t451c@gaheris.avalon.lan

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Darac Marjal

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
  On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
   
   For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
   at
   
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574

  
  To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea.
 
 Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this
 way:
 
 He says
 
   If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to
   take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it,
   and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that.

There's a solution to this. Stopping fsck is basically a similar task to
mounting a crypto disk - inasmuch as you want to drop out of the
parallel boot mode (so, if fsck is necessary, all current start-tasks
(which don't depend on this disk) should be allowed to complete) and
allow interaction with the operator. Isn't this what plymouth is for?
As I understand it, Plymouth allows interaction with the operator even
if the task is running in parallel and is backgrounded somewhere.

If the fsck happens once plymouth has completed, then I think it's
probably safe to assume that multi-user mode is available. In which
case, you can simply allow for systemctl stop Some-Mount-Task to
safely terminate fsck.

 
 but being pragmatic, if you applied the suggested change, tested and
 found no confusion taking place then keep it.
 
 I'm not completely happy with that approach but if it works, it works.
 
 I'd like to suggest 'tune2fs -c -1 /dev/sdaX' and running an fsck when
 *you* decide but the heavens could fall in. :)
 
   I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
   minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
   presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
   time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.
   
   Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.
  
  I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :)
 
 But it does get you responses.
 
 
 -- 
 To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
 with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
 Archive: 
 https://lists.debian.org/11122014192651.c5b5a6ea0...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Gian Uberto Lauri

Jerry Stuckle writes:

  This means fsck will never run because I don't use
  the laptop outside of those times.

Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on max mount or
time exceeded work to do what you want and not what it wants.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21642.52037.931895.360...@mail.eng.it

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Ric Moore

Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone 
had an fsck? It's been ages since I last had one. Inquiring minds, Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548ad4ed.8000...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 11 dec 14, 19:16:03, Reco wrote:
 
 Note that Ubuntu limits sudo-allows-all configuration to the first
 created user by default.

As does Debian (if a root password isn't set).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Joel Rees

2014/12/11 19:39 Andrei POPESCU andreimpope...@gmail.com:

 On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote:
 
  Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an
  automatic fsck.
 
  I did nothing in particular to enable that.
 
  I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to
be
  there.

 Check filesystem creation date:

 e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low
 ...
   * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
   extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
   system checks disabled.
 ...
  -- Theodore Y. Ts'o ty...@mit.edu  Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400

hmmm. Boot partition of my wheezy install:

dumpe2fs tells me the creation date is June 2012.

Last check was Dec 8.

Now this is interesting, the check interval is 6 months. And it has a max
count and mount count, as well.

 The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still
 getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were
 newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).

 I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well,
 but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then,
 including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway.

 Kind regards,
 Andrei
 --
 http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
 Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
 http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Lisi Reisz

On Friday 12 December 2014 11:43:41 Ric Moore wrote:
 Is it just me or on an ext4 file system when was the last time anyone
 had an fsck?

2 days ago.  Automatic.

Lisi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201412121350.55761.lisi.re...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
 Jerry Stuckle writes:
 
   This means fsck will never run because I don't use
   the laptop outside of those times.
 
 Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
 the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on max mount or
 time exceeded work to do what you want and not what it wants.
 

No, I work enough hours as it is.  I have a life outside of Debian.

However, the max mount is an interesting idea.  I'll look at it - but
right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported.  If
the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is)
still has systemd, I'll be changing distros.

The other option is to follow many of my clients to another distro,
which is also a possibility.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548afd71.8080...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Stefan Monnier

 Atomic in the original word meaning can't be cut, and stopping is a form of
 cutting.  Rolling back is a strategy to permit stopping an atomic operation,
 but I am unsure thi can be done always.

The fact that *some* actions need to be atomic doesn't prevent
interrupting various (other) long-running operations.

In general atomic and long-running don't go well together, so while
some atomic operation may be long-running it's usually a problem
in itself (e.g. in case of power/software failure).


Stefan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/jwva92tx9ky.fsf-monnier+in...@gnu.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Paul E Condon

On 20141211_1257+0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
 On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
  
  But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
  and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.
 
 I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can 
 manipulate the Maximum mount count without having to umount the 
 filesystem: write a script that always sets the Maximum mount count to 
 '0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the 
 crontab).
 
 With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with 
 a simple:
 
 tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY

Andrei:
If one were to put the following line into /etc/rc.local:
   tune2fs -l /dev/sdXY
where whould the output go? In particular could it be directed
to a place that is easily noticed by the owner/user of the computer?

TIA
-- 
Paul E Condon   
pecon...@mesanetworks.net


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212160854.ga6...@big.lan.gnu

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 10:11:53 +, Darac Marjal wrote:

 On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 07:48:16PM +, Brian wrote:
  On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
  
   On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:

For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
at

   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574
 
   
   To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea.
  
  Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this
  way:
  
  He says
  
If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to
take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it,
and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that.
 
 There's a solution to this. Stopping fsck is basically a similar task to
 mounting a crypto disk - inasmuch as you want to drop out of the
 parallel boot mode (so, if fsck is necessary, all current start-tasks
 (which don't depend on this disk) should be allowed to complete) and
 allow interaction with the operator. Isn't this what plymouth is for?
 As I understand it, Plymouth allows interaction with the operator even
 if the task is running in parallel and is backgrounded somewhere.
 
 If the fsck happens once plymouth has completed, then I think it's
 probably safe to assume that multi-user mode is available. In which
 case, you can simply allow for systemctl stop Some-Mount-Task to
 safely terminate fsck.

Sounds an interesting approach. My familiarity with plymouth is very
sparse so testing of this idea is down to the people who want to cancel
an in-progress fsck.

I've become a bit happier with StandardInput=tty but one could use a
solution based on ExecStart, which works without having to touch a tty.

Replace the ExecStart line in systemd-fsck@.service with

  ExecStart=/usr/local/bin/fsckcancel

fsckcancel is an executable sh script which contains code to compare the
Mount count with the Maximumum mount count and then, depending on
the result of the comparison, runs an fsck on a partition or exits.

There we are: cancellation without having to lift a finger to hit a key.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/12122014163505.82079b86b...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

 On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
  Jerry Stuckle writes:
  
This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.
  
  Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
  the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on max mount or
  time exceeded work to do what you want and not what it wants.
  
 
 No, I work enough hours as it is.  I have a life outside of Debian.
 
 However, the max mount is an interesting idea.  I'll look at it - but
 right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported.  If
 the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is)
 still has systemd, I'll be changing distros.

The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
to run one remains.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/12122014170438.58d23386d...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 09:36:33 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 On 12/12/2014 6:02 AM, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
 Jerry Stuckle writes:

   This means fsck will never run because I don't use
   the laptop outside of those times.

 Plan to use it outside of these times as a maintenance call. Or check
 the discussion for a nice suggestion to make the fsck on max mount or
 time exceeded work to do what you want and not what it wants.


 No, I work enough hours as it is.  I have a life outside of Debian.

 However, the max mount is an interesting idea.  I'll look at it - but
 right now plans are to stick with Wheezy as long as it is supported.  If
 the next version of Debian after Jessie (not sure what the name is)
 still has systemd, I'll be changing distros.
 
 The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
 to run one remains.
 
 

Which is fine.  I can run it during the day when I'm not under a
deadline.  The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time.

(Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the
list - don't know why).  And I want to thank you for the idea of
changing the max mount.  I think that will work for me just fine.  Just
set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else
when I don't need the system for a few minutes.

At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie.  But right now
none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at
other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet.

Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just
stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing.  Now I'm
going to have to keep up with other versions, also.  Maybe it's a good
time to raise my rates :)

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b39ef.4080...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

 On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:
  
  The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
  to run one remains.
 
 Which is fine.  I can run it during the day when I'm not under a
 deadline.  The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time.
 
 (Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the
 list - don't know why).  And I want to thank you for the idea of
 changing the max mount.  I think that will work for me just fine.  Just
 set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else
 when I don't need the system for a few minutes.

It was Gian Uberto Lauri who made the suggestion, actually.

 At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie.  But right now
 none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at
 other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet.
 
 Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just
 stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing.  Now I'm
 going to have to keep up with other versions, also.  Maybe it's a good
 time to raise my rates :)

We were thinking of doing the same on -user. Are invoices to your email
address acceptable? :)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/12122014193029.98630bf0f...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/12/2014 2:34 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 13:54:39 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 On 12/12/2014 12:07 PM, Brian wrote:

 The ^C method only postpones the fsck to another time. The issue of when
 to run one remains.

 Which is fine.  I can run it during the day when I'm not under a
 deadline.  The problem is only when it runs at an inconvenient time.

 (Note: for some reason I didn't receive your last email to me on the
 list - don't know why).  And I want to thank you for the idea of
 changing the max mount.  I think that will work for me just fine.  Just
 set it up to run when I'm going to a meeting or doing something else
 when I don't need the system for a few minutes.
 
 It was Gian Uberto Lauri who made the suggestion, actually.
 
 At some point I'm probably going to have to go to Jessie.  But right now
 none of my clients are. They're either staying on Wheezy or looking at
 other distros, so I don't really have to go there yet.

 Which is going to be a problem for me - until now I've been able to just
 stay with the stable version of Debian for development/testing.  Now I'm
 going to have to keep up with other versions, also.  Maybe it's a good
 time to raise my rates :)
 
 We were thinking of doing the same on -user. Are invoices to your email
 address acceptable? :)
 
 

Sure.  I'll pay anything up to 20% above the current rate :)

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b4d69.9080...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:

On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:

Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data.

I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation,
and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no*
data.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some
more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ),

tune2fs(8) says

You should strongly consider the consequences of disabling
mount-count-dependent checking entirely. Bad disk drives, cables,
memory, and kernel bugs could all corrupt a filesystem without
marking the filesystem dirty or in error. If you are using
journaling on your filesystem, your filesystem will never be
marked dirty, so it will not normally be checked. A filesystem
error detected by the kernel will still force an fsck on the
next reboot, but it may already be too late to prevent data loss
at that point.

Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is
optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss.

The changelog for e2fsprogs has

Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
system checks disabled.

This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what it
strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in e2fsprogs
is that time- and mount count-based checks are not particularly useful.

http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf

If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new
Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course
anyway and their number will grow in the coming years.

Are they any the worse off because these checks are not being made?
Has upstream got it wrong? Should some sections of the documentation
be rewritten? Or can default program behaviour and documentation be
reconciled?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212234737.gh19...@copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On 12/12/2014 6:47 PM, Brian wrote:
On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:

On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:

Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data.

I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this situation,
and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 * 0 == 0 ) *no*
data.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some
more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ),

tune2fs(8) says

Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is
optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss.

The changelog for e2fsprogs has

Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
system checks disabled.

http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf

If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new
Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course
anyway and their number will grow in the coming years.

I guess this is something Windows does better than Linux. Windows never
does a checkdsk except after a hard crash - and not always then.

Jerry

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b9a27.3070...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-12 Thread Patrick Bartek

On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Brian wrote:

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 22:04:56 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:

On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:

Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts
and a picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much
confidence you can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated
data.

I did not contribute data to a growing pool of data on this
situation, and a billion similar accounts from other users is ( 0 *
0 == 0 ) *no* data.

You have a very strange idea of what constitutes data. Here are some
more data (or non-data if you prefer :) ),

tune2fs(8) says

Very clear; mount-count dependent (or time-dependent) checking is
optional - but if you neglect doing it you run the risk of data loss.

The changelog for e2fsprogs has

Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
system checks disabled.

This is very clear too; the standard e2fsprogs doesn't give you what
it strongly advises in tune2fs(8). The reason for the change in
e2fsprogs is that time- and mount count-based checks are not
particularly useful.

http://git.whamcloud.com/?p=tools/e2fsprogs.git;a=commit;h=3daf592646b668133079e2200c1e776085f2ffaf

If the checks are not useful, why do them? Most Debian users with new
Wheezy or testing installs won't be doing them as a matter of course
anyway and their number will grow in the coming years.

I find mount count fs checks useless. You have to shutdown your
system on a regular basis for it to be effective. My personal desktop
system runs 24/7. I usually only shut it down 2 or 3 times a year.
For cleaning. Guess I could set up time between checks, but
I prefer to manually fsck. Easier. I just do this as root before
shutdown -r now:

touch /forcefsck

On booting, fsck is run on all partitions, then the empty file
forcefsck is deleted. So, this only works for that particular boot.

I don't know how effective this check is though. But I've NEVER had a
dirty partition reported in the past 8 years or so. The nice thing is it
is a very fast check. My 16GB / checked in less than 5 seconds, and the
205GB /home in about 10 seconds or so. (I didn't actually time this.
Subjective estimates.) However, it seemed TOO quick. Never thought
about that until today when I actually sat there and watched the whole
shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I don't.

Running a very custom Wheezy 64-bit install: 3GHZ quad-core AMD Phenom,
8GB RAM, Openbox WM only with a single LXPanel.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212200726.18502...@debian7.boseck208.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

Christian Groessler writes:
   ^C could be unresponsive nevertheless, the process being stuck in kernel
   space and thus completely oblivious of the signals thrown at it.
  
  
  This would be a different problem hinting at a kernel bug...

Non necessarily a bug. We have to accept that exist atomic operations
that take more than 0 secs :).

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21641.23714.298395.350...@mail.eng.it

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Mart van de Wege

Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca writes:

 Actually, it's *always* a surprise.  These fsck happen at long enough
 intervals, that I can never know if it was 4 months ago or 7 months
 ago, and neither can I remember which laptop/desktop has the delay set
 to 172 days vs 194 days vs 98 days vs ...
 Can't you write a small script to obviate the limitations of your human
 memory, like this little hacker here did?

 No.  I'm not interested in such silly workarounds.
 It can't be that hard to make C-c work again, which is a real solution.


It's not. It's a bad workaround.

This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day,
complaining about not being able to login as root.

Mart

-- 
We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes.
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/86egs64nk6@gaheris.avalon.lan

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Joel Rees

2014/12/11 3:48 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk:

 On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:

  On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
  
  Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
  fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the
default
  for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on
systems
  with bad power (you'd still get the bad shutdown check).
 
  Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a
  possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their
  gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who
  might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea
  of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just
  because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running
  a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt
  it in case of emergency isn't.

 Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. [...]

Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an
automatic fsck.

I did nothing in particular to enable that.

I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be
there.

--
Joel Rees

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
 
 But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
 and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.

I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for your 
findings.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote:
 
 Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an
 automatic fsck.
 
 I did nothing in particular to enable that.
 
 I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be
 there.

Check filesystem creation date:

e2fsprogs (1.42~WIP-2011-07-02-1) unstable; urgency=low
...
  * Mke2fs will now create file systems that enable user namespace
  extended attributes and with time- and mount count-based file
  system checks disabled.
...
 -- Theodore Y. Ts'o ty...@mit.edu  Sat, 02 Jul 2011 22:38:57 -0400


The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still 
getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were 
newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).

I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, 
but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and then, 
including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot anyway.

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Reco

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 06:16:05PM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
 2014/12/11 3:48 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk:
 
  On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
 
   On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
   
   Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
   fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default
   for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems
   with bad power (you'd still get the bad shutdown check).
  
   Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a
   possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their
   gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who
   might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea
   of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just
   because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running
   a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt
   it in case of emergency isn't.
 
  Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. [...]
 
 Odd. The last time I booted my wheezy-by-install system, it did an automatic
 fsck.
 
 I did nothing in particular to enable that.
 
 I think you are reading things into the documentation that you want to be
 there.

No, Brian is correct. It's a simple thing to check (up-to-date Wheezy):

$ truncate -s 1G 1.raw
$ /sbin/mkfs.ext4 1.raw
mke2fs 1.42.5 (29-Jul-2012)
1.raw is not a block special device.
Proceed anyway? (y,n) y
Filesystem label=
OS type: Linux
Block size=4096 (log=2)
Fragment size=4096 (log=2)
Stride=0 blocks, Stripe width=0 blocks
65536 inodes, 262144 blocks
13107 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user
First data block=0
Maximum filesystem blocks=268435456
8 block groups
32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group
8192 inodes per group
Superblock backups stored on blocks:
32768, 98304, 163840, 229376

Allocating group tables: done
Writing inode tables: done
Creating journal (8192 blocks): done
Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done

$ /sbin/tune2fs -l 1.raw
...
Filesystem created:   Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014
Last mount time:  n/a
Last write time:  Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014
Mount count:  0
Maximum mount count:  -1
Last checked: Thu Dec 11 13:47:00 2014
Check interval:   0 (none)
...

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141211105006.ga25...@d1696.int.rdtex.ru

RE: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Bonno Bloksma

Hi,

  fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.

 What if I do not have that time,

 Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if 
 required).

Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work just 
before boarding a plane is now at risk. 
Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing updates when he 
shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no time to wait, he had not 
planned on there being an interruption in the normal baviour. This morning 
his laptop would not boot.
The same can happen with normal users if we give them the new Debian Jessie 
on a laptop and they run into a similar situation where fsck will start when it 
is not a good time to do so. For whatever reason. There needs to be a non 
corrupting way to something that can last that long. 

 No other choices.
In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but soon after that we really need 
it.

 Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the problem.
When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we can 
plan. When it simply runs because it does that sometimes, no thank you, I 
would like a cancel option.

Bonno Bloksma


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/89d1798a7351d040b4e74e0a043c69d7a83dc...@einexch-01.tio.nl

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Ron

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100
Mart van de Wege mvdw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day,
 complaining about not being able to login as root.

And how do you keep a multi-user box safe if any user can sudo ?
 
Cheers,
 
Ron.
-- 
  La gloire est une affaire privée.
  -- Louis Lachenal

   -- http://www.olgiati-in-paraguay.org --
 


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141211075123.43fe1...@ron.cerrocora.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Andrei POPESCU

On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:
 
 But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
 and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.

I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can 
manipulate the Maximum mount count without having to umount the 
filesystem: write a script that always sets the Maximum mount count to 
'0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the 
crontab).

With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with 
a simple:

tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY

and the script will reset Maximum mount count immediately after, so 
you don't get a check on every reboot ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 10:53:07 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:

  Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the
  problem.
 When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we
 can plan. When it simply runs because it does that sometimes, no
 thank you, I would like a cancel option.

Then you will want to follow the advice in Comment 10 at

   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719952


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/11122014125121.4e55d200e...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

RE: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

Bonno Bloksma writes:

  Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some
  work just before boarding a plane is now at risk.

Just before boarding some plane is the bad time and place for some
work. 

  Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing
  updates when he shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no
  time to wait, he had not planned on there being an interruption in
  the normal baviour. This morning his laptop would not boot.

Bad timing for use of a computer. You know how it works, you know
what it can do. But you are the only one with a brain between the
ears. Start using it.

You know that Windows might download automagically updates and
that it could install them when you shutdown? 

  The same can happen with normal users if we give them the new

Maybe these normal users should be made a bit more aware of what they
do. Again, who is the one in charge because is equipped with a working
brain?

  Debian Jessie on a laptop and they run into a similar situation
  where fsck will start when it is not a good time to do so. For
  whatever reason. There needs to be a non corrupting way to
  something that can last that long.

If every child on every street, had clothes to wear and food to eat...

Things created by man do have drawbacks. It's something you can't
avoid.

   No other choices.

  In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but soon after that we
  really need it.

I think that even more people really need some type of perpetual
motion engine...

  When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it,
  we can plan. When it simply runs because it does that sometimes,
  no thank you, I would like a cancel option.

You have the option. Disable it. At your own risk.

On the other hand, the script could halt for user input. Then we will
have people complaining that they must attend the boot process.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21641.39890.538783.641...@mail.eng.it

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 14:22:59 -0700, Paul E Condon wrote:

 On 20141210_1830+, Brian wrote:
  On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 19:23:07 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
  
   On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
   
   Of course, there's also the option of completely disabling automatic
   fsck (there are several ways to do this), as I understand is the default
   for new enough filesystems. This would make more sense for me on systems
   with bad power (you'd still get the bad shutdown check).
   
   Yes, disabling and doing manual checks from time to time is a
   possibility, but you'd have to convince all users to hand their
   gears to an admin outside of business hours. The said admin (who
   might just bee a teacher in fact) might not be happy with the idea
   of a week-end spent at fsck'ing the world out of the compulab, just
   because of systemd. With the conditions I mentioned earlier running
   a fsck regularly is a good thing, just not being able to interrupt
   it in case of emergency isn't.
  
  Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For
   ^^
 
 Until I read the above, I had not realized that automatic fsck had
 been gone for so long -- and without me noticing. I suppose it is
 true, but I have no way of verifying. I know Wheezy and Jessie were
 both new installs for me because I had a very poor track record of
 doing successful dist-upgrades.

This paragraph constitutes data. It says that you have gone without an
fsck for x years without noticing anything untoward that you can ascribe
to a lack of one. It may be less detailed than a dedicated study might
want but they are valid data.

Multiply your experience by 10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts and a
picture begins to emerge and you can decide on how much confidence you
can place in a conclusion based on the accumulated data.
 
 Of course, there might have been some disastrous loss of data out
 there somewhere on someone else's computer. And that someone might not
 have realized that his data might have been saved if there had been a
 automatic fsck. If he thought about it at all, he probably just
 supposed that the disk failed 'between file checks', which had always
 been a possibility.

These are also data. It is also conjecture. It is very doubtful that
10,000 or 100,000 similar accounts would see any useful conclusion
formed.

 So the fact that there is no record of complaints
 proves nothing, one way or the other. We have no valid data, IMHO.

We have no data (valid or not) about failure. We do have data relating to
success; you added to it above. :) One single, well-substantiated
failure would be enough to cause a conclusion drawn from the record of
success to be re-examined.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/11122014125513.2457700af...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Stefan Monnier

 users equally well.  If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
 time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.

The issue goes beyond fsck.  It's important to be able to interrupt
various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
during boot.


Stefan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/jwv7fxyguqy.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?


On 12/11/2014 05:09 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:


But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.


I think at least some of the list subscribers would be grateful for your
findings.

Kind regards,
Andrei



Tee-hee. Assuming I'm smart enough (or motivated enough) to figure it 
out. So far it looks like more than a little trouble to go through to be 
able to set up a way to manually force a boot-time fsck (without 
involving the end users).


As I may have mentioned, the command touch /forcefsck still works with 
the systemd init system, but it produces a warning in the log which 
makes me think that the function will disappear sooner or later.


Figuring this out should at least be easier than switching everybody 
over to OpenBSD or some such.


And -- if I find a means of accomplishing the goal -- I'll definitely 
post it.


Thank you again, Andrei!

Best regards,
JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489a4f6.8030...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?


On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:


But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.


I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can
manipulate the Maximum mount count without having to umount the
filesystem: write a script that always sets the Maximum mount count to
'0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the
crontab).

With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with
a simple:

 tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY

and the script will reset Maximum mount count immediately after, so
you don't get a check on every reboot ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei



Whoa! And I get the answer just handed to me!

Now how am I supposed to learn anything when you just spoon-feed me?

;)

You know, I had been staring at tune2fs for a while and didn't come up 
with such a possibility -- mainly, I suppose, because I'm not used to 
using home-made scripts. I do almost everything by hand these days.


You have to love the power of scripting.

And the power of subscribing to a list with folks like you on it.

Many, many thanks, Andrei!

Best regards,
JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489a6aa.1050...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

Stefan Monnier writes:
   users equally well.  If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
   time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
  
  The issue goes beyond fsck.  It's important to be able to interrupt
  various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
  during boot.

But some operations are atomic.

-- 
 /\   ___Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_   African word
  //--\| | \|  |   Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software   not install
 già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian

Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21641.42908.290433.745...@mail.eng.it

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Reco

 Hi.

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 07:51:23 -0300
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI ren...@olgiati-in-paraguay.org wrote:

 On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 09:07:21 +0100
 Mart van de Wege mvdw...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  This is like all those people who first moved to Ubuntu back in the day,
  complaining about not being able to login as root.
 
 And how do you keep a multi-user box safe if any user can sudo ?

And why anyone would configure sudo to allow any user to run any
command on behalf of any other user?
Besides, even if such broken sudo configuration is in place already,
who's forbidding one to reconfigure sudo?

Note that Ubuntu limits sudo-allows-all configuration to the first
created user by default.

Reco


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/20141211191603.ca46e9f3e51bd0507ed5c...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Stefan Monnier

  users equally well.  If it does, the relevance of having a ^C at boot
  time for stopping an fsck might be open to examination.
 The issue goes beyond fsck.  It's important to be able to interrupt
 various long-running operations (typically waiting for an event)
 during boot.
 But some operations are atomic.

I don't see how to affects what I said.


Stefan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/jwvwq5ydtq6.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.u...@gnu.org

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Jerry Stuckle

On 12/11/2014 5:53 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
 Hi,
 
 fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.

 What if I do not have that time,

 Find it (this includes planning - of infrastructure and procedures if 
 required).
 
 Ok, so that means anyone with a nice laptop who wants to do some work just 
 before boarding a plane is now at risk. 
 Just had to help someone this morning who had Windows 7 doing updates when he 
 shut down his laptop to board a plane. He had no time to wait, he had not 
 planned on there being an interruption in the normal baviour. This morning 
 his laptop would not boot.
 The same can happen with normal users if we give them the new Debian Jessie 
 on a laptop and they run into a similar situation where fsck will start when 
 it is not a good time to do so. For whatever reason. There needs to be a 
 non corrupting way to something that can last that long. 
 
 No other choices.
 In the near future with Jessie, maybe no, but soon after that we really 
 need it.
 
 Let fsck run and pray it does not halts claiming it can't fix the problem.
 When it is started due to an unclean shutdown or something like it, we can 
 plan. When it simply runs because it does that sometimes, no thank you, I 
 would like a cancel option.
 
 Bonno Bloksma
 
 

A perfect example.  I often do work just before boarding a plane on a
Windows notebook, because around here you don't know when a plane is
going to board until they actually start boarding it.  It could be on
time, or it could be 30 minutes (or more) late.

But I have Windows Update set to Notify only - no automatic
downloading and installing of updates.  That way I can control when the
updates are done (I've seen it take  20 minutes to shut down after a
major update).

If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?

Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the
wrong time.

I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489d03e.5040...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

 If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
 critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?

As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is concerned I've already
mentioned grub's datehook module. Ok, you have to set it up in grub.cfg
but then you can forget about ever having an fsck run at an inconvenient
time. Assuming your presentations tend to take place between 10:00 and
20:00 the machine would be configured to not run an fsck during that
time slot.

 Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the
 wrong time.

For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
at

   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574
 
 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
 presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
 time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.

Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/11122014180201.1f494f1dd...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Jerry Stuckle

On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
 On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
 
 If Windows can give you the option as to when to perform a potentially
 critical (do not shut down!) and long running process, why can't Linux?
 
 As far as having the option of an fsck at boot is concerned I've already
 mentioned grub's datehook module. Ok, you have to set it up in grub.cfg
 but then you can forget about ever having an fsck run at an inconvenient
 time. Assuming your presentations tend to take place between 10:00 and
 20:00 the machine would be configured to not run an fsck during that
 time slot.


OK, so I set it up not to run between 07:30 and 21:00 (some
presentations start as early as 8:00 AM and some evening presentations
as late as 8:30 PM).  This means fsck will never run because I don't use
the laptop outside of those times.

 Or, better yet, give the option to cancel it if it does start at the
 wrong time.
 
 For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
 at
 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574
  

To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea.

 I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
 minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
 presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
 time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.
 
 Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.
 
 

I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :)

Jerry


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5489ea5c.9030...@gmail.com

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 14:02:52 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

 On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote:
  
  For less work to set up than the previous method you want to take a look
  at
  
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799574
   
 
 To which Lennart responded that is not a good idea.

Who am I to argue with a super-coder's views. :) I would look at it this
way:

He says

  If an fsck is started after boot is complete we really shouldn't try to
  take posession of /dev/tty1 again, since X11 or a getty might run on it,
  and things would get very confused if we'd try to read input from that.

but being pragmatic, if you applied the suggested change, tested and
found no confusion taking place then keep it.

I'm not completely happy with that approach but if it works, it works.

I'd like to suggest 'tune2fs -c -1 /dev/sdaX' and running an fsck when
*you* decide but the heavens could fall in. :)

  I often give presentations with my notebook.  If I'm lucky, I get 10-15
  minutes to set up.  If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. another
  presenter ahead of me).  I use Linux whenever possible, but since my
  time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to complete.
  
  Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy for it.
 
 I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the problem :)

But it does get you responses.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
https://lists.debian.org/11122014192651.c5b5a6ea0...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?

2014-12-11 Thread Charlie

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent:

snip

 The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still 
 getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were 
 newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).
 
 I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well, 
 but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and
 then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot
 anyway.

I have to admit that I noticed it, but was made an ass off, because I
assumed it was happening in the background. Not realising it always
started before the boot because it couldn't fsck while the machine was
running.

I thought that might have been what allowed systemd to boot faster?

If you find a way to implement a forced fsck every now and then could
you please post it here. As I would be very pleased to be able to do
that now realising it is no longer happening at all.

Being and ordinary user I have no idea where to look or even start.

Thank you,
Charlie
-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

An opinion is like a branding iron. It is one thing to hold it,
and another to press it into the skin of a friend. James
Lileks

***

Debian GNU/Linux - just the best way to create magic

-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212073716.37a75a14@taogypsy

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?



On 12/11/2014 05:57 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:

On Mi, 10 dec 14, 15:32:55, Jape Person wrote:


But that information plus the linked items (in the info output) grub-reboot
and grub-editenv may get me started toward a solution.


I just thought of a different approach, using the fact that one can
manipulate the Maximum mount count without having to umount the
filesystem: write a script that always sets the Maximum mount count to
'0' or '-1' late during the boot (e.g. via rc.local or @reboot in the
crontab).

With this one can easily trigger a manual check on the next reboot with
a simple:

 tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sdXY

and the script will reset Maximum mount count immediately after, so
you don't get a check on every reboot ;)

Kind regards,
Andrei



Hello, Andrei!

I just wanted to confirm that adding a single line to rc.local to set 
Maximum mount count to 0 and then using tune2fs to set the count to 1 
and rebooting had exactly the effect desired.


I know it was obvious -- once you suggested it -- that this would work, 
but thought I should confirm the method's efficacy for anyone else who 
might be interested.


I also wanted to thank you again. I ran fsck manually by this method on 
a remote (very) system without involving the end user at all. Just what 
the doctor ordered!


Best regards,
JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548a0887.5030...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?


On 12/11/2014 03:37 PM, Charlie wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:23:10 +0200 Andrei POPESCU sent:

snip


The root of my sid install was created before that, so I was still
getting the periodic check for it. The other ext4 filesystems were
newer, so weren't checked (and I didn't even notice it).

I've just disabled the automatic check on the root partition as well,
but I'm considering how to implement a forced fsck every now and
then, including an xfs partition, which wouldn't be checked at boot
anyway.


I have to admit that I noticed it, but was made an ass off, because I
assumed it was happening in the background. Not realising it always
started before the boot because it couldn't fsck while the machine was
running.

I thought that might have been what allowed systemd to boot faster?

If you find a way to implement a forced fsck every now and then could
you please post it here. As I would be very pleased to be able to do
that now realising it is no longer happening at all.

Being and ordinary user I have no idea where to look or even start.

Thank you,
Charlie

Some of the messages in this thread are an exchange between myself and 
Andrei Popescu. Andrei came up with a perfectly easy solution which I 
have tested and found to work.


It involves an edit (as root) of /etc/rc.local to add a single line. 
That line invokes the tune2fs utility to set a parameter called maximum 
mount count to 0 during the boot process. That keeps fsck from being 
invoked.


For a system which boots from /boot in /dev/sda1 I used:

tune2fs -c 0 /dev/sda1

as the line added to rc.local.

When I want to manually run fsck on that partition I use:

# tune2fs -c 1 /dev/sda1

That sets maximum mount count to 1, which means that fsck will be run on 
/dev/sda1 the next time the system is booted. This strategy means that, 
following the file system check, rc.local will again use tune2fs to set 
the maximum mount count back to 0 so that fsck won't run on the 
subsequent reboot.


And Bob's your uncle!

Yours truly,
another ordinary user -- JP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548a0de7.8060...@comcast.net

Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?