Frédéric Massot wrote:
> John Rouillard a écrit :
>> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:49:03PM +0200, Matthias Meyer wrote:
>>> Michael Stowe wrote:
By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives
unreliable?
>>> Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the
>
John Rouillard a écrit :
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:49:03PM +0200, Matthias Meyer wrote:
>> Michael Stowe wrote:
>>> By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
>> Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the disk.
>> I feel better if the disk w
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 07:49:03PM +0200, Matthias Meyer wrote:
> Michael Stowe wrote:
> > By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
> Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the disk.
> I feel better if the disk will be checked regular.
> If I
> Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the disk.
> I feel better if the disk will be checked regular.
> If I determine that there are no errors a couple of month I can stop this
> check anyway.
As a general rule, unless the ext3 file system experiences a crash that
prev
Michael Stowe wrote:
>
> By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
>
Not really. But the server runs a lot of weeks without checking the disk.
I feel better if the disk will be checked regular.
If I determine that there are no errors a couple of month I can stop th
Matthias Meyer wrote:
> Is there a way to retain the job queue? Or to check if anything is in it?
>
Not that I'm aware of.
In theory, storing the job queue over a shutdown shouldn't be tough (it
should just be a matter of writing a construct to a file, and reading it
in on startup). At the
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:04:55 +1200, Michael wrote:
> Why not ext4?
> works very well on my setup
well, AFAIK, it also have a inode limit, but the max its too large
to be a problem...
yet, i dont know what default limit it have
but the main reason is the same: its t
Why not ext4?
works very well on my setup
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:04 PM, higuita wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 08:17:42 -0500, "Michael Stowe"
> wrote:
>> By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
>
> even worst... why are you using ext3?
> eve
Hi
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 08:17:42 -0500, "Michael Stowe"
wrote:
> By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
even worst... why are you using ext3?
ever think in switching to reiserfs, xfs or jfs? they should
perform better and dont have inode l
By the way, what's the point of doing this? Are your drives unreliable?
> Chris Robertson wrote:
>
>> Matthias Meyer wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I plan to periodically e2fsck my /var/lib/backuppc.
>>> I want to write a bash script which check if BackupPC_dump is running.
>>> If not, it will stop b
Chris Robertson wrote:
> Matthias Meyer wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I plan to periodically e2fsck my /var/lib/backuppc.
>> I want to write a bash script which check if BackupPC_dump is running.
>> If not, it will stop backuppc, unmount the device and run
>> e2fsck -fp $device
>>
>> What is about Backup
Matthias Meyer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I plan to periodically e2fsck my /var/lib/backuppc.
> I want to write a bash script which check if BackupPC_dump is running.
> If not, it will stop backuppc, unmount the device and run
> e2fsck -fp $device
>
> What is about BackupPC_link? Should I check for this p
Hello,
I plan to periodically e2fsck my /var/lib/backuppc.
I want to write a bash script which check if BackupPC_dump is running.
If not, it will stop backuppc, unmount the device and run
e2fsck -fp $device
What is about BackupPC_link? Should I check for this process too?
There are further proces
13 matches
Mail list logo
