er whether the thing
> paniced or had a powercycle, or how long it has been up. I have
> softupdates activated but I must be missing something.
>
> I badly need background fsck. We are talking a 1.3 GHz, a 5400 rpm
> P-ATA notebook harddrive with a 150 GB filesystem here :-/
It&#x
d but I must be missing something.
I badly need background fsck. We are talking a 1.3 GHz, a 5400 rpm
P-ATA notebook harddrive with a 150 GB filesystem here :-/
Martin
--
%%%
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 07:29:07AM -0400, stan wrote:
> ON machines that I'm actively making chnages on, and may make frequent
> reboots, I'd like to disable backgroundfsck to avoid the risk of rebooting
> wile t is still running.
>
> How can i do this?
>
Just add the line
background_fsck="NO"
ON machines that I'm actively making chnages on, and may make frequent
reboots, I'd like to disable backgroundfsck to avoid the risk of rebooting
wile t is still running.
How can i do this?
--
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
_
Tamouh H. wrote:
>> Tamouh H. wrote:
[ ... ]
>> PS You can find plenty of people like Kris and Micah right here on
>> freebsd-questions: people giving their own time to actually
>> help people sort out their problems. Haven't seen you doing that.
>>
>
> Probably your whole 10 YRS of working on F
reeBSD
foundation and other organizations that utilize FreeBSD.
I didn't complain about the system reboots (did I?), there is definitely a
problem with the system rebooting, but that is my job to resolve it (whether
being hardware or FreeBSD itself) and YES FreeBSD does have its issues *BIG
Tamouh H. wrote:
Micah, Kris:
You guys are hilarious, where can I find ppl like you ?
Of course I'm using a backup power, but there are 101 reasons for FreeBSD to
reboot by itself and when that happens, 30 minutes downtime is 30 minutes of
wasted time.
Since you're *so* smart, perhaps y
> Tamouh H. wrote:
> >
> >> Ensel Sharon wrote:
> >>> I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
> >>>
> >>> background_fsck="no"
> >>>
> >>> But I am curious - what does this mean for the
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, Micah wrote:
> Ensel Sharon wrote:
> > I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
> >
> > background_fsck="no"
> >
> > But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
> > crashes ?
> >
Tamouh H. wrote:
Ensel Sharon wrote:
I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
background_fsck="no"
But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
crashes ?
Does this mean that the system will wait for all non root
partitions
to fully f
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 11:42:45PM -0500, Tamouh H. wrote:
>
> >
> > Ensel Sharon wrote:
> > > I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
> > >
> > > background_fsck="no"
> > >
> > > But I am cur
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 3/13/06, Ensel Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
> >
> > background_fsck="no"
> >
> > But I am curious - what
>
> Ensel Sharon wrote:
> > I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
> >
> > background_fsck="no"
> >
> > But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
> > crashes ?
> >
> > Does this mean
Ensel Sharon wrote:
I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
background_fsck="no"
But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
crashes ?
Does this mean that the system will wait for all non root partitions to
fully fsck before coming up into
On 3/13/06, Ensel Sharon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
>
> background_fsck="no"
>
> But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
> crashes ?
>
> Does this mean that the syst
I have disabled background fsck in my /etc/rc.conf with:
background_fsck="no"
But I am curious - what does this mean for the system if the system
crashes ?
Does this mean that the system will wait for all non root partitions to
fully fsck before coming up into multi-user mode ?
O
s
intentional. I tried to "fix" it but never got too far (well, I gave
up). If I remember correctly (which is not at all sure since this was
a while ago and I did not make notes), it has something to do with the
fact that the root filesystem is mounted read-only, and the
appropriate flags th
On 11/21/05, Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what is the rule to decide if filesystem may be background checked or not?
>
> for example my / is checked foreground, while /home checked background.
>
> can't root partition be background checked too?
On my laptop, if I'm in a hurry to ge
On 11/20/05, Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what is the rule to decide if filesystem may be background checked or not?
>
> for example my / is checked foreground, while /home checked background.
>
> can't root partition be background checked too?
The root partition is probably checke
what is the rule to decide if filesystem may be background checked or not?
for example my / is checked foreground, while /home checked background.
can't root partition be background checked too?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
On Friday 23 January 2004 10:42, Heinrich Rebehn wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Does anyone know if the background fsck feature of 5.x is also available
> for UFS filesystems or is it only for UFS2?
It's not UFS2 but 5.x related. 5.2 has UFS2 as default, but 5.1 also had
background fs
Hi list,
Does anyone know if the background fsck feature of 5.x is also available
for UFS filesystems or is it only for UFS2?
Heinrich
--
Heinrich Rebehn
University of Bremen
Physics / Electrical and Electronics Engineering
- Department of Telecommunications -
Phone : +49/421/218-4664
Fax
On Wednesday 19 March 2003 09:52 am, John Straiton wrote:
> Thanks for the idea. While I'm not against the idea of the disk dying,
> this is reproduceable quite reliably. Foreground fsck -y in single user
> mode works in about 2 minutes (for the 119GB slice) flawlessly every
> ti
> > background_fsck="NO"
How fantastically easy. I should have known. I guess it's time to peruse
/etc/defaults/rc.conf again for other new things to play with now that
I'm on the new branch.
Thanks a lot to everyone who replied. I only wish I knew why it was both
machines crap out while trying
119GB slice) flawlessly every
> time and background fsck always hangs the machine.
>
> Additionally, the machine is about a week old Dell Poweredge 1650. While
> we all know new != works, it's less likely than a machine with a hard
> drive that's been in there awhile.
>
"John Straiton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I ask the list again: Is there a way to disable the background
> checking of disks?
Put the follwoing line in /etc/rc.conf:
background_fsck="NO"
--
Best regards
Christian Laursen
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubsc
Thanks for the idea. While I'm not against the idea of the disk dying,
this is reproduceable quite reliably. Foreground fsck -y in single user
mode works in about 2 minutes (for the 119GB slice) flawlessly every
time and background fsck always hangs the machine.
Additionally, the machine is
ide to the write-deny (and if so, what risks
> inclusive to it) or a way to keep the machine from coming up until the
> fsck is done? (ala 4.X style..)
>
> I have a machine at home where the boot drive is 160GB that would
> benefit from the answer as well. If it has to fsck, I have t
to keep the machine from coming up until the
fsck is done? (ala 4.X style..)
I have a machine at home where the boot drive is 160GB that would
benefit from the answer as well. If it has to fsck, I have to currently
take it to single-user because if I let it background fsck, the damn
thing will ha
29 matches
Mail list logo
