to this of course, is that
any changes you made while the fsck was running are lost. I don't think
this is acceptable either.
I think the better solution is to fsck on shutdown ( if it must be done
at all -- I still say an automatic fsck when no problems have been
detected should just be disabled
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
One thing that I have not seen in this discussion is the notion that
fsck might be modified to run incrementally.
That's an interesting idea, though I don't know enough about ext3 to comment
on its feasibility. Perhaps something to discuss with upstream?
Not possible
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think both of these points are best addressed with a simple, non
obnoxious prompt on shutdown to run a fsck before shutting down, and
also giving the option to put it off until tomorrow, next week, or never
ask me
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Evan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Phillip Susi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think both of these points are best addressed with a simple, non
obnoxious prompt on shutdown to run a fsck before shutting down, and
also giving the option
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:15 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
== Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu
Although this might start a small side-track of the main subject, I
would like to add that it would be cool if the new solution could also
incorporate checking of usb mass storage devices. Portable hard disks
are becoming more popular, formatting them with ext is becoming more
popular, but there
I've been trying out a script (attached) for the last few days, that
does something similar to the idea in my previous comment. It's a shell
script that can be put in cron.daily and/or called from an @reboot cron
job. The script checks each of your LVM-based filesystems in turn, and
won't start
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 07:41:18AM +0800, Onno Benschop wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
== Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter
about how and when it performs filesystem
Andrew Sayers wrote:
snip
I assume that the equivalent of umount $snapshot is done within the
kernel when the snapshot is created, because it gives you a new
non-mounted block device. It's therefore possible to do fsck from cron.
The snapshot was never mounted in the first place, so there is
ke, 2008-08-13 kello 18:33 -0400, Phillip Susi kirjoitti:
Andrew Sayers wrote:
snip
I assume that the equivalent of umount $snapshot is done within the
kernel when the snapshot is created, because it gives you a new
non-mounted block device. It's therefore possible to do fsck from cron.
Phillip Susi wrote:
The snapshot was never mounted in the first place, so there is no need
to unmount it.
As you mentioned before however, any files changed since the snapshot
was made will be lost when you reboot and merge the snapshot back to the
main volume.
Either I'm not making
PLEASE redirect your efforts towards online fscking. This whole idea
is absolutely horrible.
--
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
Alexander Jones wrote:
PLEASE redirect your efforts towards online fscking. This whole idea
is absolutely horrible.
How so?
- Andrew
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Because people are talking about snapshotting a FS in a potentially
broken state, fscking it in the background---whilst continuing to use
it!
Assuming that using a broken FS doesnt hose it (admittedly it
shouldn't), merging a changeset from a broken state into a repaired
state is a process which
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
== Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter
about how and when it performs filesystem
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Some of the other ideas which have been proposed are:
Run fsck during shutdown (when the user isn't expecting to be able to use
the
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:57:36PM +1000, Ian Chennell wrote:
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
Some of the other ideas which have been proposed are:
Run fsck
2008/8/12 Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A way to avoid that would be to set up systems with LVM, and use an LVM
snapshot volume for running fsck. This would give fsck a frozen snapshot
of the system, and should work better. However, it requires some free
space to be used, and I haven't
I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
I've had to reinstall. Since I don't want to be forced into that again,
I'm trying to disable it permanently and take my chances on losing a
file here or there.
However, I can't seem to shut it off.
So far, I've used
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Paul S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
I've had to reinstall. Since I don't want to be forced into that again,
I'm trying to disable it permanently and take my chances on losing a
file here or
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Alexander Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/8/12 Mackenzie Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Paul S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
I've had to reinstall. Since I don't
ti, 2008-08-12 kello 15:07 +0100, Matt Zimmerman kirjoitti:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:59:22PM +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
2008/8/12 Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
A way to avoid that would be to set up systems with LVM, and use an LVM
snapshot volume for running fsck. This would
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 06:17:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
ti, 2008-08-12 kello 15:07 +0100, Matt Zimmerman kirjoitti:
Indeed. The best we could do in a scenario like this would be to flag the
filesystem dirty so that it gets checked the next time it's possible.
I assume you mean the
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
The LVM solution isn't viable anyway; there's no guarantee that the metadata
on disk is in any way consistent while the filesystem is mounted. The
problem in your test isn't only that the filesystem is changing from
underneath it, it's also that it may not have been
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:15:05AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
== Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
A suggestion was made to the technical board that
Seeing it from the perspective of an common user, fsck is something
whose function is unknown and therefore running it is senseless, so they
might turn if off directly or skip it always which is not good.
My idea:
- Mount the partition read-only
- Capture writes with something like AuFS/Union-FS
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
== Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter
about how and when it performs filesystem integrity checks (fsck).
Decision: This should be discussed more
27 matches
Mail list logo
