Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
At 7:22 AM -0600 12/31/07, HggdH wrote: > > - for people with several disks: when a fsck is >> needed for a disk, add the option to run the fsck on all the disks, >> even if it is not needed yet; >> this would minimize how often the user will be >> prompted for a fsck, as all the disks would be >> checked simultaneously. > >I agree with all, and in special with this last one: I *do* run multiple >filesystems, and having them checked one at a time makes the difference >between waiting 30+ minutes, or only 5 minutes for a shutdown/startup. >The option of checking the FSs one at a time is (on my laptops) very >important. > >And, of course, beats having an unusable system for more than half an >hour. In fact, I was asking for the opposite: the opposite is especially interesting if the user can leave the computer on its own and if it automatically shutsdown once all fscks have completed. Consequently, I would now suggest both possibilities? Francesco -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
> - for people with several disks: when a fsck is > needed for a disk, add the option to run the fsck on all the disks, > even if it is not needed yet; > this would minimize how often the user will be > prompted for a fsck, as all the disks would be > checked simultaneously. I agree with all, and in special with this last one: I *do* run multiple filesystems, and having them checked one at a time makes the difference between waiting 30+ minutes, or only 5 minutes for a shutdown/startup. The option of checking the FSs one at a time is (on my laptops) very important. And, of course, beats having an unusable system for more than half an hour. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
At 12:15 PM -0500 12/26/07, Phillip Susi wrote: >Chris Martin wrote: >> I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth >> (1) At shutdown is good >> (2) Timeout/interuptable is good >> (3) BUT. The default action should be ³No Action² >> >> At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required >> >> When the timeout occurs (it should be short say 30 seconds) the >> default should be to skip it until the next shutdown >> >> IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the >> fsck. > >I agree completely. The system should just tell the user that running a >check periodically is a good idea, but let them decide if now is a good >time. The default action should be to skip the check for now, and >prompt again at the next boot. Other options should be to remind me >again in 5 boots/next week. >From my point of view, I would also appreciate if the system would tell me at shutdown that a fsck will occur at the next boot giving the user at least these possibilities (other people might want more possibilities): - perform it right away and automatically shutdown when complete - tell it to not run the fsck immediately nor at the next boot (with reminders later) - for people with several disks: when a fsck is needed for a disk, add the option to run the fsck on all the disks, even if it is not needed yet; this would minimize how often the user will be prompted for a fsck, as all the disks would be checked simultaneously. Francesco -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: > Just out of curiosity: might there be something to gain by using a > different file system (Reiser4, XFS, JFS)? That is a point I have made a few times now; none of those other filesystems require a periodic fsck, but they are not magically better than ext3, so there is no reason for ext3 to continue to require it. I always use tune2fs to shut it off personally. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Chris Martin wrote: > I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth > (1) At shutdown is good > (2) Timeout/interuptable – is good > (3) BUT. The default action should be “No Action” > > At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required > > When the timeout occurs (it should be short – say 30 seconds) the > default should be to skip it until the next shutdown > > IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the > fsck. I agree completely. The system should just tell the user that running a check periodically is a good idea, but let them decide if now is a good time. The default action should be to skip the check for now, and prompt again at the next boot. Other options should be to remind me again in 5 boots/next week. Also I like the idea of adding the option to the drive properties dialog in gnome to adjust the check interval/disable it. IOW, a simple gui interface to the tune2fs options. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:37:35AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in > favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things > just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check. Any severe corruption is likely to trigger the kernel's own sanity checks, at which point a check will be forced anyway. Otherwise we seem to be optimising for a massively uncommon case at the expense of everyone else. If ext3 had a habit of introducing corruption, we'd know about it by now. We should just skip the time and count based checks. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
> Of course then there's the laptop angle. > My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left. One day I either > need a new laptop or to pony up a thousand for a shiny new model. > Anyways--I usually hit shutdown, unplug everything and throw it in my bag. > > It would definitely run out of juice before the check was done on my 120 GB > drive. > > -A Doh. My bad. Totally missed the whole part of the thread discussing exactly what I just said. -A -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. Of course then there's the laptop angle. My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left. One day I either need a new laptop or to pony up a thousand for a shiny new model. Anyways--I usually hit shutdown, unplug everything and throw it in my bag. It would definitely run out of juice before the check was done on my 120 GB drive. -A -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
I agree entirely, the user shouldn't have to say, "no, don't do it" they should have to say "yes, now is a good time". On Dec 22, 2007 10:46 AM, Chris Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth > > > > (1) At shutdown is good > > (2) Timeout/interuptable – is good > > (3) BUT. The default action should be "No Action" > > > > At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required > > When the timeout occurs (it should be short – say 30 seconds) the default > should be to skip it until the next shutdown > > IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the > fsck. > > One the fsck is complete the machine turns off as usual > > > > > > > --- > > Chris Martin > > m: 0419 812 371 > > e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --- > -- > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan > Musther > *Sent:* Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:54 AM > *To:* Aurélien Naldi > *Cc:* ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > *Subject:* Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue > > > > If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to > skip it, or better yet they would be prompted. > > I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and > then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately > switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's > laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat. In that particular > case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a > powered up hard drive. The latest version now contains a timeout, if no > selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without > running the check. There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. > > The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter > whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they > certainly want to use it now. When most people shut down, they don't care > as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style > prompt, they can postpone it if they need to. > > Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot > times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same > time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized > disks). > > > On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. > > I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think > about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how > good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? > Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I > don't want to be late because of a fsck. > > Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more > important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) > > Regards. > -- > Aurelien Naldi > > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > > > -- > Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) > http://www.slingshot-game.org > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
RE: fsck on boot is major usability issue
I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth (1) At shutdown is good (2) Timeout/interuptable is good (3) BUT. The default action should be No Action At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required When the timeout occurs (it should be short say 30 seconds) the default should be to skip it until the next shutdown IE the user has to explicitly select that now is a good time to do the fsck. One the fsck is complete the machine turns off as usual --- Chris Martin m: 0419 812 371 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Musther Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:54 AM To: Aurélien Naldi Cc: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to skip it, or better yet they would be prompted. I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat. In that particular case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a powered up hard drive. The latest version now contains a timeout, if no selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without running the check. There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they certainly want to use it now. When most people shut down, they don't care as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style prompt, they can postpone it if they need to. Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized disks). On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I don't want to be late because of a fsck. Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) Regards. -- Aurelien Naldi -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
To try to answer the question of whether we could simply disable the periodic fsck, I decided to ask Mingming Cao, one of the developers who has worked on ext3 and later, ext4. I just got the following: "Periodically fsck ext3 is still needed, even if ext3 is a journalled fs. kernel code vm/fs could be buggy, or disks IO errors, which cause filesystem metadata corrupted silently, this can't be detected by simply replaying the journal log. Well how often should ext3 do the sanity check is really depend on the customer's priority, whether they would like to trade some of the boot up time with more confident of the fs's healthy. It's probably a good idea to warning the user that the scheduled fsck is coming and let user to decide whether they want to do it or delaying it." That answers it for me. On Dec 21, 2007 9:31 AM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still say we should just disable the checks entirely. No other > filesystem still does this nonsense. It's just a holdover from ext2, > which had it as a leftover from ext, which had it out of convention from > minix, which did it as purely pedantic ( or did it actually perform some > maintenance then that needed done periodically? I can't remember ). > > On the other hand, your solution looks like a great improvement. > > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:09 -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote: > Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when on battery? But there are definitely people who rarely or never use the laptop while plugged in. E.g., they may charge overnight, unplug and take the laptop on the road, replugging in the evening. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
With the battery issue. Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when on battery? I personally thought the entire point of journalled file-systems was to not have to do this kind of check. In fact getting rid of this kind of thing was one of the great features of NTFS over FAT (on windows). On moving to Linux, I felt like I had taken a step backwards in that aspect of file-systems. Thanks, Bryan Quigley On Dec 21, 2007 1:53 PM, Jonathan Musther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to > skip it, or better yet they would be prompted. > > I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and > then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately > switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's > laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat. In that particular > case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a > powered up hard drive. The latest version now contains a timeout, if no > selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without > running the check. There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. > > The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter > whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they > certainly want to use it now. When most people shut down, they don't care > as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style > prompt, they can postpone it if they need to. > > Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot > times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same > time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized > disks). > > > > > On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > > > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > > > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. > > > > > > I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think > > about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how > > good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? > > Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I > > don't want to be late because of a fsck. > > > > Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more > > important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) > > > > Regards. > > -- > > Aurelien Naldi > > > > > > -- > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > > > > > -- > Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) > http://www.slingshot-game.org > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to skip it, or better yet they would be prompted. I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately switched off the monitor) and not noticed the autofsck dialogue, one user's laptop remained powered on until the battery was flat. In that particular case it was in his laptop bag on a bus journey, not the best place to have a powered up hard drive. The latest version now contains a timeout, if no selection is made within 2 minutes, the machine will shut down without running the check. There's also an audio prompt to try to combat this. The way I see it, if somebody turns on a computer, it doesn't matter whether they absolutely need it right now, say for a presentation, but they certainly want to use it now. When most people shut down, they don't care as they're no longer using it, with the addition of an autofsck style prompt, they can postpone it if they need to. Every time a new feature in a new version of Ubuntu means faster boot times, this is publicised as a great thing, I find it odd that at the same time we allow one in every 30 boots to be very, very long (with modern sized disks). On Dec 22, 2007 2:20 AM, Aurélien Naldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. > > I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think > about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how > good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? > Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I > don't want to be late because of a fsck. > > Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more > important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) > > Regards. > -- > Aurelien Naldi > > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Jonathan Musther wrote: > It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an > interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown? fsck at shutdown is good. back in the day, i used to use a hardware checking tool on mac os (i think it was called tech tools), iirc the default was for it to do all the checks at shutdown. i am using autofsck now. one issue (that i have reported) is that it will prompt you even if you are logging out. it would be great if it could detect that the user had click shutdown and only run then. sam -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Just out of curiosity: might there be something to gain by using a different file system (Reiser4, XFS, JFS)? -- Morten -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote: > My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an > interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think about a laptop shuting down because its battery is nearly empty: how good is it to slow down the shutdown and risk a brutal power off ? Also, I'm often waiting for my computer to shutdown before leaving, I don't want to be late because of a fsck. Making it interruptible and runnable on demande easily is more important, then it can be on bootup or shutdown, I don't care ;) Regards. -- Aurelien Naldi -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown? Certainly an interruptible check is an improvement, but is it still lacking in usability? Also, would the user have to skip the check within a timeout (something like "Press enter within 10 seconds to skip"), or would they be able to cancel it at any point? Personally, I think having the check at boot is inconvenient, even if it can be skipped, but what do others think? On Dec 21, 2007 9:37 PM, Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Jonathan Musther [2007-12-21 9:16 +1300]: > > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > > 'just in case' filesystem check. > > We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in > favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things > just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check. > > We proposed some changes in [1] to alleviate this: > > * Make the boot-time check interruptible if the file system was > clean, and print out a message when a check happens (otherwise the > user does not know at all what's going on). > > * Offer some 'check now'/'check at next boot' (depending on whether > the partition is currently mounted) buttons in the drive properties > in the UI. > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/PartitionManagement > > Martin > -- > Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de > Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com > Debian Developer http://www.debian.org > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Hi, Jonathan Musther [2007-12-21 9:16 +1300]: > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > 'just in case' filesystem check. We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check. We proposed some changes in [1] to alleviate this: * Make the boot-time check interruptible if the file system was clean, and print out a message when a check happens (otherwise the user does not know at all what's going on). * Offer some 'check now'/'check at next boot' (depending on whether the partition is currently mounted) buttons in the drive properties in the UI. [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/PartitionManagement Martin -- Martin Pitthttp://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 22:17 +0100, Mario Vukelic wrote: > When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by > Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's > been a long time though, and searching now turns up nothing definitive > for me. Ah, I think I found an incomplete quote of what I had in mind. It's not really conclusive, and I'd like to know that was edited out anyway. http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html "Q: If a system shutdown hard, even with journaling is it at all necessary to run e2fsck? Theodore Ts'o said: It's best to just always run e2fsck. [...] E2fsck will run the journal automatically, and if the filesystem is otherwise clean, it skip doing a full filesystem check. If the filesystem is not clean (because during the previous run the kernel noticed some filesystem inconsistencies), e2fsck will automatically do a full check if it is necessary. If you have multiple disks, fsck will run multiple e2fsck processes in parallel, thus speeding up your boot sequence than if you let the kernel replay the journal for each filesystem when it tries to mount it, since then the journal replays will be done sequentially, instead of in parallel." Here's Stephen Tweedie, he clearly states that no fsck is needed after a dirty unmount, but I don't find anything on periodic scheduled checks (which can be scheduled only on a server, not a personal computer). Is Tweedie still at RedHat? If so it should be no problem to ask. http://olstrans.sourceforge.net/release/OLS2000-ext3/OLS2000-ext3.html "And some of these EXT2 filesystems are getting really rather big. Even 24 months ago, there were people building 500 gigabyte EXT2 filesystems. They take a long time to fsck. I mean, really. These are filesystems that can take three or four hours just to mkfs. Doing a consistency check on them is a serious down time. So the real objective in EXT3 was this simple thing: availability. When something goes down in EXT3, we don't want to have to go through a fsck. We want to be able to reboot the machine instantly and have everything nice and consistent. And that's all it does. It's a minimal extension to the existing EXT2 filesystem to add journaling. And it's really important, EXT2 is the workhorse filesystem. It's the standard stable filesystem. We don't want to turn EXT2 into an experimental filesystem. For one thing, users expect to have EXT2 there as a demonstration of how to code filesystems for Linux. It's a small, easily understood filesystem which demonstrates how to do all of the talking to the page cache, which has changed in 2.4, all of the locking in the directory handling, which has changed in 2.4. All of these changes in the VFS interface and the VM interface that filesystems have to deal with are showcased in EXT2. So there are multiple reasons why we really do not want to start making EXT2 into an experimental filesystem, adding all sorts of new destabilizing features. And so the real goal for EXT3 was to provide the minimal changes necessary to provide a complete journaling solution. [03m, 26s] So it provides scaling of the disk filesystem size and it allows you to make larger and larger filesystems without the fsck penalty." -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 09:44 +1300, Jonathan Musther wrote: > I would very much like to hear from somebody on the ext3 team about > this. When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's been a long time though, and searching now turns up nothing definitive for me. I find the long-standing insecurity abut this topic very weird, though. If an important ext3-using distro like Ubuntu asked the ext3 team, wouldn't they get an answer quickly? I would think so. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
I've spent a lot of time looking for the reasoning behind still doing the checks, all I've found is anecdotal evidence, some people say they have first hand experience of errors creeping in, which were then fixed by fsck. On the other hand some people, although a small number, have turned them off with no apparent trouble. I would very much like to hear from somebody on the ext3 team about this. I'm not against simply disabling the checks on principle, but I would want to be confident that it wasn't going to cause problems. On Dec 21, 2007 9:31 AM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Musther wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > > 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the > author > > of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to > > shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. > > I still say we should just disable the checks entirely. No other > filesystem still does this nonsense. It's just a holdover from ext2, > which had it as a leftover from ext, which had it out of convention from > minix, which did it as purely pedantic ( or did it actually perform some > maintenance then that needed done periodically? I can't remember ). > > On the other hand, your solution looks like a great improvement. > > -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
Jonathan Musther wrote: > Hi, > I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that > recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a > 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author > of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to > shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. I still say we should just disable the checks entirely. No other filesystem still does this nonsense. It's just a holdover from ext2, which had it as a leftover from ext, which had it out of convention from minix, which did it as purely pedantic ( or did it actually perform some maintenance then that needed done periodically? I can't remember ). On the other hand, your solution looks like a great improvement. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
fsck on boot is major usability issue
Hi, I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to shutdown, and asks the user before it is run. I've been trying (see blueprint below) to get the functionality of AutoFsck included in Ubuntu for a long time, with no success. I have requested support and guidance from the ubuntu-desktop team in launchpad, with no response, I've gone through the idea pool and forums (with great support from users), and had no luck. So I'm hoping that by restarting discussion on this list, that we might be able to get somewhere. Here is the blueprint, and the rest of this (admittedly rather long) email deals with the rationale for something like AutoFsck, and what we can do next: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown I think it's well established now that this is a major problem in terms of usability - whenever AutoFsck is discussed there are some people who talk about leaving their computer on for months, there being no need to reboot, windows users coming to linux and complaining about perfectly sane checks, putting data at risk by running checks on shutdown rather than boot etc. I think it's fair to discount these simply by calling them short sighted. The Ubuntu distribution aims to be easy for the new user, or simply the user who just wants to get on with browsing the web, writing documents and looking at photos without having the OS make life difficult for them. This ease of use doesn't mean we have to compromise on quality, or even on advanced features for advanced users, but this isn't an issue of a feature which is too complex for novice users - it's an issue of bad system design from a usability standpoint. So, on the one hand the check is a useful safeguard against some types of filesystem damage, and on the other it can be very annoying to the user. The first thing to note is that this check doesn't have to be done every 30 boots, or every 20, or every 40. Those numbers are arbitrary, the more often you do the check, the safer you're likely to be, it's simple arithmetic, but it would also be absurd to suggest doing it every boot cycle. So it doesn't matter when the check is run, boot or shutdown, or even during the session (forgetting for the moment the technical issues with that) - so long as it is run periodically. As a consequence, when I wrote AutoFsck I didn't have to worry about running checks on a strict deadline, I thoughts simply about usability. When is the most convenient time to run a disk check? The obvious answer is when the user no longer wants to use the computer, on shutdown. But what if they are packing away a laptop and need it to turn of right now? Well, have a dialogue asking if it's a good time to do the check, if they say no, shut down and prompt them again next time. And there we have AutoFsck, that's all it does. There are a few other features, an audio prompt to get the users attention, a timeout in case they don't see the dialogue (the computer will shut down without running the check after 2 minutes) - but essentially that's it. Of course there are issues with AutoFsck, I'm not suggesting it should go into the Ubuntu distribution in its current form (although it is fully functional). Some people worry that users will get into the habit of saying no (when prompted to run fsck) so they don't ever run the check. Well to be honest that is the users right, but I see no evidence from the users of AutoFsck - most users are more in the habit of clicking yes, it's not often that they need to say no. What to do now? I'm not entirely sure, but I'm open to any suggestions, help with AutoFsck, discussion of how we could get this functionality into the Ubuntu distribution, discussion of the technicalities of AutoFsck, how it works etc. On some AutoFsck users suggestion I've created a sort of petition for this functionality, at the bottom of: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck The idea pool thread which relates to this is: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3985270#post3985270 Jon -- Slingshot - a unique game everyone enjoys - and it's free :-) http://www.slingshot-game.org -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
