On Fri 12 Dec 2014 at 07:37:16 +1100, 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
On 20141211_1332+, Brian wrote:
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
On 20141211_1223+0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Jo, 11 dec 14, 18:16:05, Joel Rees wrote:
snip
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.
insert fsck reminder into to-do list using
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 08:05:49, tv.deb...@googlemail.com a écrit :
On 10/12/2014 09:30, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Le Tuesday 09 December 2014 16:36:53, The Wanderer a écrit :
On 12/09/2014 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal
Frédéric Marchal writes:
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 08:05:49, tv.deb...@googlemail.com a écrit :
On 10/12/2014 09:30, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Le Tuesday 09 December 2014 16:36:53, The Wanderer a écrit :
On 12/09/2014 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 09:49:51, Gian Uberto Lauri a écrit :
Frédéric Marchal writes:
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 08:05:49, tv.deb...@googlemail.com a écrit
:
On 10/12/2014 09:30, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Le Tuesday 09 December 2014 16:36:53, The Wanderer a écrit :
On
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:07:52 +0100
Frédéric Marchal frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com wrote:
In the case of regularly failing power it would probably be more often
inconvenient to run fsck at shutdown.
Power failures are as likely to occur during boot, don't they?
In my case no, more
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:49:51 +0100
Gian Uberto Lauri sa...@eng.it wrote:
fsck may take time. Relax, it needs that time.
What if I do not have that time, and an un-interruptible fsck is launched
automatically ?
This regression must be got rid of.
Cheers,
Ron.
--
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 08:53:08, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you
won't admit that systemd took away a feature, and that it is systemd's
business to bring it back.
Mmm, I'll have to chime in here. The fact is, systemd never implemented
this feature, while your statement
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 07:32:07, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
In my case no, more likely during shut-down, since the only time I
shut down my box is when there is a power cut, and I have to shut it
down quickly, before the UPS gives up. So I certainly do not want an
unwanted automatic fsck at that
Frédéric Marchal writes:
Usually on shutdown you run sync that flushes the cache to the disk,
cleanly preparing the disk for unmounting. The mount command should
'run' sync automatically when unmounting.
You run fsck on power up because the 'system does not remember' if it
was
Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI writes:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014 09:49:51 +0100
Gian Uberto Lauri sa...@eng.it wrote:
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).
No other choices.
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 13:04:16, 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
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 11:10:52, Frédéric Marchal a écrit :
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 09:49:51, Gian Uberto Lauri a écrit :
You run fsck on power up because the 'system does not remember' if it
was shut-off cleanly or not. If the disks are clean and the last check
is not too old,
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 07:32:07, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
In my case no, more likely during shut-down, since the only time I
shut down my box is when there is a power cut, and I have to shut it
down quickly, before the UPS gives up. So I certainly do not
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been asking
for
this for at least 10 years. Is it now
It seems the discussion revolves around methods to disable an automatic
fsck when it
is not wanted.
It went away from an obvious solution (^C a running fsck) and suggests
compilcated and/or
convoluted workarounds, which have to be implemented or enabled proactively.
I want to get back to the
Christian Groessler writes:
To get the machine to boot again, I had to enter the BIOS, disable the
network card there,
Hmmm... you could have tried with a single user mode bootstrap, that
could have avoided you going to the BIOS.
Quite a dance instead of just typing ^C
^C could be
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 13:41:51, Christian Groessler wrote:
I want to get back to the root of the problem and claim, that I want to be
able to interrupt *any* startup
command, not just fsck.
The debug shell could be (part of) the answer, but beware of the
security risks. See
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 13:26:57 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 13:04:16, 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
On 12/10/2014 at 06:04 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 08:53:08, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you won't admit that systemd took away a
feature, and that it is systemd's business to bring it back.
Mmm, I'll have to chime in here. The fact is, systemd
On 12/10/2014 at 06:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 07:32:07, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
In my case no, more likely during shut-down, since the only time I
shut down my box is when there is a power cut, and I have to shut
it down quickly, before the UPS gives up. So I certainly do
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
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:42:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/10/2014 at 06:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 07:32:07, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
In my case no, more likely during shut-down, since the only time I
shut down my box is when there is a power cut, and I have
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 09:29:17, The Wanderer wrote:
For such a user, this is not a systemd-centric question; it is a
Debian-centric one, and the responsibility of having caused it and for
fixing it is on Debian. Debian chose to switch to systemd, and that
switch introduced this bug; it is
I want to get back to the root of the problem and claim, that I want
to be able to interrupt *any* startup command, not just fsck.
Oh, yes, aol-mode me too! /aol-mode!
Systemd's boot seems to suffer a lot more from such problems. E.g. it
waits for a long time before timeout if one of the
I want to get back to the root of the problem and claim, that I want
to be able to interrupt *any* startup command, not just fsck.
The debug shell could be (part of) the answer,
You mean, they're probably going to answer by pointing us to the
debug shell? Yes, probably. But it's again just a
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 09:42:43, The Wanderer wrote:
Both of those latter situations are similarly time-limited, and even if
there are heuristic solutions for the others, the last at least will
generally not be something the computer can detect and identify.
As said in my other message:
1.
On 12/10/2014 at 10:12 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:42:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/10/2014 at 06:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
That would be easy to implement, assuming you computer knows
it's running on batteries.
On batteries is easy enough, for a
On 12/10/2014 at 10:14 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 09:29:17, The Wanderer wrote:
For such a user, this is not a systemd-centric question; it is a
Debian-centric one, and the responsibility of having caused it and
for fixing it is on Debian. Debian chose to switch to systemd,
Hi Rick,
Actually, THAT is the very reason we ask for the option to be able to cancel
a running fsck. You can never predict
EVERY situation when fsck would be run but needed to be avoided.
Maybe I asked a non tech to simply turn on the machine, how technical does
one need to be to do that.
Hello,
replying inline
On 10/12/2014 14:04, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 08:53:08, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you
won't admit that systemd took away a feature, and that it is systemd's
business to bring it back.
Mmm, I'll have to chime in here. The fact
On 12/10/14 14:10, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
Christian Groessler writes:
To get the machine to boot again, I had to enter the BIOS, disable the
network card there,
Hmmm... you could have tried with a single user mode bootstrap, that
could have avoided you going to the BIOS.
That was in
On 12/10/2014 10:14 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
In my not so humble opinion, one should be using such a switch to
re-examine one's setup, practices, etc. You might discover some
interesting stuff. As far as I'm concerned:
1. I'll be looking into disabling periodic checks on all my ext4
On 12/10/2014 12:53 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you won't admit that
It's gotten to the point that wholesale deleting of this topic is in
order. :/ Ric
--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance,
The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm writes:
On 12/10/2014 at 10:12 AM, Darac Marjal wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:42:43AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/10/2014 at 06:10 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
That would be easy to implement, assuming you computer knows
it's running on batteries.
On 10/12/2014 20:32, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/10/2014 12:53 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you won't admit that
It's gotten to the point that wholesale deleting of this topic is in
order. :/ Ric
Yes, that, earplugs and blindfold, makes for quiet days. Sorry but I
On 12/10/14, 3:41 AM, Frédéric Marchal
frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com wrote:
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 11:10:52, Frédéric Marchal a écrit :
Le Wednesday 10 December 2014 09:49:51, Gian Uberto Lauri a écrit :
You run fsck on power up because the 'system does not remember' if it
was
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
On 12/10/2014 12:55 PM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/12/2014 20:32, Ric Moore wrote:
On 12/10/2014 12:53 AM, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
All this just because you won't admit that
It's gotten to the point that wholesale deleting of this topic is in
order. :/ Ric
Yes, that,
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 11:36:35, Jape Person wrote:
Using fsck.mode=force on the linux command line works fine for the purpose
of forcing a file system check at home, but I don't see a practical way to
use it on the remote systems. Do I really have to walk each of them through
editing of the
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 10:39:21, The Wanderer wrote:
At a glance, however, both of those look like they still require a USB
connection... and my (APC) UPS doesn't seem to have a USB port. It does
have a network port, so I imagine that maybe I could get things working
with a network cable to the
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 08:53:08 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 09/12/2014 22:11, Brian wrote:
GRUB can be told about an upcoming fsck and display a message inviting
you to choose to do it or not. So you get to know about it in advance;
which presumably you didn't know before.
Brian wrote:
Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For
the vast majority of users this passed unnoticed and for at least two
years most new users have never seen an enforced fsck at boot. During
the same amount of time there has not been a single report of any
On 12/10/2014 01:40 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
On Mi, 10 dec 14, 11:36:35, Jape Person wrote:
Using fsck.mode=force on the linux command line works fine for the purpose
of forcing a file system check at home, but I don't see a practical way to
use it on the remote systems. Do I really have to
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
On Wed 10 Dec 2014 at 13:30:22 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
Brian wrote:
Ever since Wheezy automatic fsck has been disabled on new installs. For
the vast majority of users this passed unnoticed and for at least two
years most new users have never seen an enforced fsck at boot. During
the
Le Monday 08 December 2014 15:40:03, The Wanderer a écrit :
This thread is about complaints about not being able to interrupt /
abort / cancel an already-started boot-time fsck.
This thread is about using one's computer quickly after turning it on. An
unexpected un-interruptible fsck is seen
On 2014-12-09, Frédéric Marchal frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com wrote:
This thread is about using one's computer quickly after turning it on. An=20
unexpected un-interruptible fsck is seen as an obstacle to this.
To summarize the best solution proposed so far, I have to
1) adjust
2014/12/09 18:06 Frédéric Marchal frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com:
[...]
That procedure seems perfectly fine to me unless i completely forget
about running fsck. To this the mountinfo script (
http://nwalsh.com/hacks/mountinfo/) was proposed by Curt. It is a solution
but I would prefer a
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been asking for
this for at least 10 years. Is it now acceptable, possible, tolerated?
That sounds like a recipe for disaster. Do you mean *before* shutdown?
--
If
On 12/09/2014 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been
asking for this for at least 10 years. Is it now acceptable,
possible, tolerated?
That sounds like a recipe
On Wed, 10 Dec 2014, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been asking for
this for at least 10 years. Is it now acceptable, possible, tolerated?
It was proposed that we do this
On Tue 09 Dec 2014 at 10:11:45 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brian you seem to miss a point here, your roundabout solution to
systemd introduced regression implies that when you boot your
computer you get to know in advance if you can afford a fsck to run
on those big data drives. I
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 23:13:45 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Monday 08 December 2014 19:00:36 Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 17:14:58 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Monday 08 December 2014 16:25:51 Brian wrote:
Remedial action is not needed because the right choice was made from the
On 09/12/2014 22:11, Brian wrote:
On Tue 09 Dec 2014 at 10:11:45 +0300, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote:
Brian you seem to miss a point here, your roundabout solution to
systemd introduced regression implies that when you boot your
computer you get to know in advance if you can afford a fsck to
Hi John,
Brian writes:
I see ideas being examined and criticised. I see no attacks on anyone.
I did.
Well, I am one of the participants in the discussion and did not see any
attacks.
We are merely discussing why it is a good idea to have the option to cancel a
running fsck. Others are
Le Tuesday 09 December 2014 16:36:53, The Wanderer a écrit :
On 12/09/2014 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been
asking for this for at least 10 years. Is it now
On 10/12/2014 09:30, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Le Tuesday 09 December 2014 16:36:53, The Wanderer a écrit :
On 12/09/2014 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:48:58AM +0100, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
Now, is it possible to run fsck during shutdown? Users have been
asking
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
Le Monday 08 December 2014 09:44:07, Curt a écrit :
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:12:55 +0100
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org wrote:
Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept the
fact.
After all, it's *my* computer, and *I* want to be in control
On Lu, 08 dec 14, 06:59:13, Renaud OLGIATI wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:12:55 +0100
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org wrote:
Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept the
fact.
2014-12-08 10:28 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Marchal
frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com:
Le Monday 08 December 2014 09:44:07, Curt a écrit :
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long enough
intervals, that I can
Hi Brian,
Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
But remember our current slogan Linux is all about choice. One can
choose to boot with or without fsck.mode=skip.
What about the choice to stop fsck it if it has started at an inconvenient
moment ?
Remedial action is not needed because
Hi Rick,
But remember our current slogan Linux is all about choice. One
can choose to boot with or without fsck.mode=skip.
You've never had to reboot a room of 100 servers with a specific
odrder and see that the second one just began a 2h long fsck ?
I run all virtualized proxmox server
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 10:12:55 +0100, Christian Groessler wrote:
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org writes:
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
On 08/12/14 01:29, The Wanderer wrote:
If that results in you shooting yourself in the foot over the long term,
then that's your problem, because you made the decision to prioritize
the immediate benefit of cancelling the fsck over the long-term benefit
of letting it run.
My experience of
On Sun 07 Dec 2014 at 20:29:37 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/07/2014 at 06:37 PM, Mart van de Wege wrote:
It is a small mistake, not worth bothering about,
That depends on its consequences, which in some circumstances can be
significant enough to be worth caring about.
Indeed. And
On 12/08/14 12:04, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org writes:
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long enough
intervals, that I can never know if it
On 08/12/14 08:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
Hi,
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
Hello Claude,
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 ...
Maybe you just have to
Hello Bonno (my bad i forget to say hello :( )
If you have some kind of monitoring system, you can monitor tune2fs output
and raise an alert if mount count is close to maximum mount count. So you
will be warned about fsck on next reboot, and you can delay it by adjusting
maximum mount count, or
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
On 08/12/14 08:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
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
2014-12-08 11:44 GMT+01:00 claude juif claude.j...@gmail.com:
2014-12-08 10:28 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Marchal
frederic.marc...@wowtechnology.com:
Le Monday 08 December 2014 09:44:07, Curt a écrit :
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a
On Monday 08 December 2014 13:31:57 The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
On 08/12/14 08:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long
enough intervals, that I can
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 08:31:57 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
On 08/12/14 08:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long
enough intervals,
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 12:41:06 +0100, Christian Groessler wrote:
On 12/08/14 12:04, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org writes:
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise.
On 12/08/2014 at 09:15 AM, Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 08:31:57 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
There is *no legitimate basis* for arguing with the OP's
complaint. The systemd transition has caused a user interface
regression, which should
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 10:51:01 +, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Hi Brian,
Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk wrote:
But remember our current slogan Linux is all about choice. One can
choose to boot with or without fsck.mode=skip.
What about the choice to stop fsck it if it has started at
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Christian Groessler wrote:
Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept
the fact.
Handwaving issues away is intolerable behavior in a professional capacity,
but in this particular
On Monday 08 December 2014 14:15:32 Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 08:31:57 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
On 08/12/14 08:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise.
On 12/08/2014 at 09:15 AM, Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 08:31:57 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 06:41 AM, Martin Read wrote:
I like systemd, but I do wish certain of its non-coding
proponents would stop indulging in incendiary defence of it
against legitimate
On Monday 08 December 2014 14:42:45 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
We broke the signal delivery in sysvinit as well for a while, when we added
parallel execution (startpar). People would ^C and the signal would hit
some unintended process because there were several running at the same
On 12/8/2014 9:42 AM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Christian Groessler wrote:
Why don't the systemd proponents understand that someone might want to
interrupt a running fsck? Don't scrutinize the reasons, just accept
the fact.
Handwaving issues away is intolerable
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 09:40:03 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 09:15 AM, Brian wrote:
Sorry, I see no defence (incendiary or otherwise) of any init
system being made in this thread. What I do see is people trying to
help with a solution to a problem. One by Curt is referenced
On 12/08/2014 at 11:25 AM, Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 09:40:03 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 09:15 AM, Brian wrote:
Sorry, I see no defence (incendiary or otherwise) of any
init system being made in this thread. What I do see is people
trying to help with a solution
On Monday 08 December 2014 16:25:51 Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 09:40:03 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
Several people in this thread (including, I think, you?) are responding
to those complaints by saying It's your own fault, for not doing X,
rather than by saying Yes, it's systemd's
Brian writes:
I see ideas being examined and criticised. I see no attacks on anyone.
I did.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On 2014-12-08, The Wanderer wande...@fastmail.fm wrote:
I think that's a poor analogy.
A slightly better one might be if the travel agent offered alternative
routes by land and sea, but no other air-travel options to the same
destination - and then reacted condescendingly when the traveller
On 12/08/2014 06:41 AM, Christian Groessler wrote:
On 12/08/14 12:04, Mart van de Wege wrote:
Christian Groessler ch...@groessler.org writes:
On 12/08/14 09:44, Curt wrote:
On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier monn...@iro.umontreal.ca wrote:
Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen
On 12/08/2014 07:06 AM, Bonno Bloksma wrote:
Actually, THAT is the very reason we ask for the option to be able to cancel a
running fsck. You can never predict EVERY situation when fsck would be run but
needed to be avoided.
Maybe I asked a non tech to simply turn on the machine, how
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 17:14:58 +, Lisi Reisz wrote:
On Monday 08 December 2014 16:25:51 Brian wrote:
On Mon 08 Dec 2014 at 09:40:03 -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
Several people in this thread (including, I think, you?) are responding
to those complaints by saying It's your own fault,
On 12/08/2014 09:40 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
On 12/08/2014 at 09:15 AM, Brian wrote:
/snip/
This thread is about complaints about not being able to interrupt /
abort / cancel an already-started boot-time fsck.
/snip/
It has been remarked that systemd is an approach similar to Windows,
and
On 12/08/2014 09:09 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
Anyhow, I've gained something from this thread. I didn't know that I could
get rid of fsck by the simple expedient of C^c. Yes, I know that it is
obvious, and I can't believe that I didn't even try it, but I clearly didn't.
Maybe, like me, it's
On 12/08/2014 11:56 AM, The Wanderer wrote:
A slightly better one might be if the travel agent offered alternative
routes by land and sea, but no other air-travel options to the same
destination - and then reacted condescendingly when the traveller
insisted that they really do need air travel
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014, Ric Moore wrote:
Keep in mind that interrupting fsck is regarded as a very very bad
practice by every link brought by a google search using key words
Interrupting ext2/3/4 fsck while it is reading data structures is safe as
in it is not going to make anything worse.
I will
101 - 200 of 232 matches
Mail list logo
