On 12/29/2014 10:05 PM, Ric Moore wrote: > On 12/29/2014 08:51 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/29/2014 1:27 PM, Ric Moore wrote: >>> On 12/29/2014 06:44 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/29/2014 1:22 AM, Ric Moore wrote: >>>>> On 12/28/2014 10:58 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/28/2014 5:54 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday 28 December 2014 00:20:20 Celejar wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:52 -0500 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jerry Stuckle <stuckleje...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2014 1:23 PM, Brian wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thu 11 Dec 2014 at 12:11:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I often give presentations with my notebook. If I'm lucky, I >>>>>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>>>>> 10-15 minutes to set up. If I'm not, less than 5 minutes (i.e. >>>>>>>>>>> another presenter ahead of me). I use Linux whenever possible, >>>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>>> since my time slot is limited, I can't wait for fsck to >>>>>>>>>>> complete. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your type of situation is well understood and there is sympathy >>>>>>>>>> for it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I appreciate that - but unfortunately, sympathy doesn't solve the >>>>>>>>> problem >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Someone may have suggested this, and I know it doesn't really >>>>>>>> solve the >>>>>>>> core problem, but perhaps consider suspending (to disk or ram) >>>>>>>> instead >>>>>>>> of shutting down when you have a presentation scheduled? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, that is a way round the problem not a solution to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A facility that was available no longer is. Whether it should be, >>>>>>> is an >>>>>>> entirely different question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lisi >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Lisi, >>>>>> >>>>>> While I agree it's only a way around a problem and not a solution, >>>>>> I do >>>>>> appreciate people trying to help out. >>>>>> >>>>>> And while I would prefer a solution, it looks like that's not >>>>>> going to >>>>>> happen. So, unfortunately, after many years as a Debian user, I'm >>>>>> looking at other options. My clients are looking, also, although not >>>>>> every one has made the decision to switch yet. >>>>> >>>>> What's wrong with sticking with Wheezy for the next couple of >>>>> years?? I >>>>> haven't had my ext4 file system want to fsck in eons. Several times I >>>>> have MADE it do a check on the next boot, just to check, and a >>>>> Tbyte of >>>>> storage was fscked in about 10-15 seconds. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not as easy as you think. I write device drivers; for instance, one of >>>> my customers manufacturers microprocessor-based systems. Right now >>>> they >>>> are using Debian, but are now looking for another distro. It's not >>>> something they do lightly or quickly; even now they may not have time >>>> before service is dropped for Wheezy. And I need to be running the >>>> same >>>> software they are. >>>> >>>>> Besides, I never did buy that bit about doing a complete >>>>> dist-upgrade to >>>>> Jessie (testing!) and then expecting to do a presentation to clients >>>>> without a complete shakedown. I'd shoot myself first. I know you know >>>>> better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where did I ever say I wouldn't do a complete shakedown? But this is >>>> the type of bug which can bite you weeks or months after the install. >>>> It doesn't occur minutes, hours or even days later. And Murphy says it >>>> will happen at the worst possible time. >>>> >>>>> Can we not let this pitiful excuse for a thread JUST DIE?? :/ Ric >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is a Debian User list. Why don't you want bugs which affect >>>> Debian >>>> users discussed here? And that's what I have seen here - at least >>>> until >>>> you started complaining about the thread. >>> >>> There we differ. You consider it a bug, and I consider it a feature. >>> When I googled on the topic there was a Hail Mary chorus shouting "DO >>> not interrupt fsck! It's BAD!". Ergo the consensus of opinion that if it >>> is critical enough, do not allow it to be interrupted. Tough titties, as >>> the process is for your own good. >>> >> >> I agree it's not a good idea to interrupt fsck WHEN IT IS FIXING A >> PROBLEM. A routine test when there is no indication of a problem is a >> completely different story. >> >>> It's a small price to pay when you look back at the days when a Windows >>> server HAD to go down at 3AM "for maintenance" (defrag, which took quite >>> awhile) while we laughed and laughed at the stupid lamers who used it >>> and suffered. I know I did. >>> >> >> It can be a HUGE problem. For instance - maybe I'm getting ready to >> make a presentation to a VP of a client's company. The success of this >> project depends on my presentation being more successful than another >> consultants. fsck running right then can easily cost me tens of >> thousands of dollars over the course of the contract. >> >> Are YOU willing to reimburse me for that loss? >> >>> But, you sure as hell wouldn't interrupt a Windows full defrag process >>> half-way through, would you? We've had it easy, so I consider it a >>> feature. I'll take a 20 second inconvenience any day. :) Ric >>> >>> >>> >> >> I can, and I have, when it runs at an inconvenient time. Windows allows >> this, and terminates the defrag gracefully. That's one thing Windows >> has on Debian. >> >> Just because it's OK for YOU to have fsck to run any time it wants does >> NOT mean it's ok for everyone else. > > Running ext4, the only time it has run fsck for me is when it had to. > Otherwise I run it manually just to be sure. > >> And that's what this thread is all about - how to stop it from happening. >> >> But it will probably not matter to me, anyway. My clients are looking >> for alternatives to Debian just because of crap like this. And we're >> talking a lot of Debian systems running in dedicated controllers. > > Why not run zfs?? Have you not considered it?? It STILL runs file > maintenance but it runs while the file system is alive and running. It > just slows down things unless you use a cron job when file service is > more idle. Like at night. Give that a whirl. Problem solved. The average > user has no need to interrupt fsck since fsck knows more about the need > to run than the user does. It will run when it has to. Thank $DEITY$ for > that. > > "If the file system is found to have a problem at the booting time non > interactive fsck is run and all errors which are considered safe to > correct are corrected. But if still file system has problems the system > boots in single user mode asking for user to manually run the fsck to > correct the problems in file system." > > You seriously want to mess with that? The logic escapes me. And, on top > of that, to blame systemd? That's where we really part ways. Please read > this: > http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/unix/FsckHistory > :/ Ric >
Ric, as others have indicated - this is NOT the only time fsck runs on Jessie. It's the times it runs unannounced at boot when there are no problems indicated which is the problem here. And I don't have a say as to what my clients run for a filesystem. They have their own reasons for running what they do. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54a21f96.2010...@gmail.com
