hi ya silvan
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Silvan wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 June 2004 09:06 pm, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> That's 'cuz it's fsck, not fdisk. :P
aint it fun, dumb of me, to look at the man pages of fdisk and talk about
e2fsck :-) .. had a good night sleep afterward tho
> So I should swap fsck for e2fsck for starters.
might be some differences between fsck and e2fsck
> It isn't mounted normally. It isn't mounted before fscking it.
good... but i'd add the umount to the script, just to make sure
nothing breaks
> No, I shouldn't. Especially since all 42 reports are completely uneventful
> runs. The "-n" option is supposed to keep it from doing anything without
> asking me, and presumably if there ever *is* a problem, I'll see it the next
> morning and can intervene manually.
wondering why you'd want to continuously ( daily ) check the fs ..
> > my guess is your script was not doing anything??
>
> Maybe not. Maybe the -n option keeps it from showing that it has been fscked.
> Must be some filesystem flag or something to show that, and in
> non-interactive mode it writes nothing. I guess that means it writes
> *nothing*.
interesting idea with fsck -n ...
sounds like the script didnt do anything, because when you mount(?) it,
it says ( running e2fsck since its been mounted 42 times w/o fsck'ing )
- a good sign, in this case
have fun
alvin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
