On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:18:28AM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> > > Thanks for bringing this up. I wasn't aware of /fastboot.
> > > Looks like a good solution. Well, except that / has to be
> > > mounted first.
> >
> > ummm, / is gonna be mounted, otherwise how is the OS reading /etc or
> > at
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 09:18:28AM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> > > Thanks for bringing this up. I wasn't aware of /fastboot.
> > > Looks like a good solution. Well, except that / has to be
> > > mounted first.
> >
> > ummm, / is gonna be mounted, otherwise how is the OS reading /etc or
> > at
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry,
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 23:34, Tony Godshall wrote:
> >
> > > (another option is to have your script touch /fastboot when on battery,
> > > as that will completely bypass the running of fsck - just make sure it
> > > runs before checkroot.sh!... you'd need a
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry,
> On Tuesday 09 September 2003 23:34, Tony Godshall wrote:
> >
> > > (another option is to have your script touch /fastboot when on battery,
> > > as that will completely bypass the running of fsck - just make sure it
> > > runs before checkroot.sh!... you'd need a
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 23:34, Tony Godshall wrote:
>
> > (another option is to have your script touch /fastboot when on battery,
> > as that will completely bypass the running of fsck - just make sure it
> > runs before checkroot.sh!... you'd need a static copy of on_ac_power
> > (well, awk/g
On Tuesday 09 September 2003 23:34, Tony Godshall wrote:
>
> > (another option is to have your script touch /fastboot when on battery,
> > as that will completely bypass the running of fsck - just make sure it
> > runs before checkroot.sh!... you'd need a static copy of on_ac_power
> > (well, awk/g
According to Mike Beattie,
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:27PM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> > Well, I mount the drives with noatime, which helps. And I
> > used to run noflushd. But to be honest I haven't tested the
> > spindown issue that much. Mostly I use hdparm to get
> > faster disk I/O.
According to Mike Beattie,
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:27PM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> > Well, I mount the drives with noatime, which helps. And I
> > used to run noflushd. But to be honest I haven't tested the
> > spindown issue that much. Mostly I use hdparm to get
> > faster disk I/O.
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:27PM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> Well, I mount the drives with noatime, which helps. And I
> used to run noflushd. But to be honest I haven't tested the
> spindown issue that much. Mostly I use hdparm to get
> faster disk I/O. By the way, I'm certainly no expert
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:47:27PM -0500, Tony Godshall wrote:
> Well, I mount the drives with noatime, which helps. And I
> used to run noflushd. But to be honest I haven't tested the
> spindown issue that much. Mostly I use hdparm to get
> faster disk I/O. By the way, I'm certainly no expert
[Harry]
> > > > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > > > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> > > >
> > > > I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> > > > rescheduling for the next reboot (with powersupply available) would be
>
[Harry]
> > > > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > > > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> > > >
> > > > I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> > > > rescheduling for the next reboot (with powersupply available) would be ve
Please show the hdparm bit. There is the problem of routine file
accesses, flushing, etc., spinning up the drive immediately after it spins
down.
I would be interested in how you deal therewith.
Luke
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Tony
Godshall wrote:
> According to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > On Mon, Sep 01,
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> >
> > I think its quite a waste of battery power for the f
Please show the hdparm bit. There is the problem of routine file
accesses, flushing, etc., spinning up the drive immediately after it spins
down.
I would be interested in how you deal therewith.
Luke
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Tony
Godshall wrote:
> According to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> > On Mon, Sep 01,
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> >
> > I think its quite a waste of battery power for the f
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>3. Edit "/etc/fstab", pick the correct line, and change the
> filesystem parameter from "ext2" to "ext3".
Even better is to use "ext3,ext2". That way the filesystem can be
mounted by a kernel that doesn't support ext3.
While ext3 reduc
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>3. Edit "/etc/fstab", pick the correct line, and change the
> filesystem parameter from "ext2" to "ext3".
Even better is to use "ext3,ext2". That way the filesystem can be
mounted by a kernel that doesn't support ext3.
While ext3 reduc
From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So several of people have answered your question directly, however I would
> like to caution you against this.
>
> If fsck actually needs to run you are placing your data at considerable
risk.
The whole point, though, is that it doesn't really _ne
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the most part the journaling filesystems never need to run fsck
> check
This is bad advice. Even with ext3 you should run fsck periodically.
For example, journaling doesn't protect against hardware problems such
as write errors.
These rout
From: "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So several of people have answered your question directly, however I would
> like to caution you against this.
>
> If fsck actually needs to run you are placing your data at considerable
risk.
The whole point, though, is that it doesn't really _ne
"Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the most part the journaling filesystems never need to run fsck
> check
This is bad advice. Even with ext3 you should run fsck periodically.
For example, journaling doesn't protect against hardware problems such
as write errors.
These rout
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 09:44:47PM +0200, Marcus C. Gottwald wrote:
> 2. Run "tune2fs -j /dev/hdxx" to create a (preliminary) journal
>in the ext2 filesystem on partition "/dev/hdxx".
This step is missing the usage of tune2fs to change the mount count
option... check the -i and -c options.
My
Hello,
Slaven Peles wrote (Sun 2003-Sep-07 14:58:19 -0400):
> > An ext3 fs should not really run fsck, it looks at the journals to make
> > sure everything is order and moves on. A minute or so, tops.
>
> But it does by default. Apparently some configuration option has to be
> changed, but I
On September 7, 2003 14:40, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Sunday 07 September 2003 10:26, Matt Foster wrote:
> > I completly agree with what you're saying, but if you're on the move,
> > few things are more irritating than having to wait ten minutes for your
> > system to start-up. If you're like
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 09:44:47PM +0200, Marcus C. Gottwald wrote:
> 2. Run "tune2fs -j /dev/hdxx" to create a (preliminary) journal
>in the ext2 filesystem on partition "/dev/hdxx".
This step is missing the usage of tune2fs to change the mount count
option... check the -i and -c options.
My
On Sunday 07 September 2003 10:26, Matt Foster wrote:
>
> I completly agree with what you're saying, but if you're on the move,
> few things are more irritating than having to wait ten minutes for your
> system to start-up. If you're like me, then you only use your laptop on
> battery periodically,
Hello,
Slaven Peles wrote (Sun 2003-Sep-07 14:58:19 -0400):
> > An ext3 fs should not really run fsck, it looks at the journals to make
> > sure everything is order and moves on. A minute or so, tops.
>
> But it does by default. Apparently some configuration option has to be
> changed, but I
Quoting Sean 'Shaleh' Perry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Monday 01 September 2003 01:04, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> >
> > I think its quite a waste of battery power fo
On September 7, 2003 14:40, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Sunday 07 September 2003 10:26, Matt Foster wrote:
> > I completly agree with what you're saying, but if you're on the move,
> > few things are more irritating than having to wait ten minutes for your
> > system to start-up. If you're like
On Monday 01 September 2003 01:04, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
>
> I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> rescheduling for the next reboot (with pow
On Sunday 07 September 2003 10:26, Matt Foster wrote:
>
> I completly agree with what you're saying, but if you're on the move,
> few things are more irritating than having to wait ten minutes for your
> system to start-up. If you're like me, then you only use your laptop on
> battery periodically,
Quoting Sean 'Shaleh' Perry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Monday 01 September 2003 01:04, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> > days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
> >
> > I think its quite a waste of battery power fo
On Monday 01 September 2003 01:04, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
>
> I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> rescheduling for the next reboot (with pow
From: "Jason Kraftcheck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>>Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> >>>time (that is, before /usr is
Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.sh).
Doh! Of course you're right. I
From: "Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> > From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> > > time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.
From: "Jason Kraftcheck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
> >
> >
> >>From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>>Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> >>>time (that is, before /usr is
Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote:
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.sh).
Doh! Of course you're right. I wonde
From: "Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> > From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> > > time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
> From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> > time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.sh).
>
> Doh! Of course you're right. I wonder if it could be c
Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > * Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> > > Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > >
> > > > Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed
> to be
>
From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> > Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > >
> > > Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed
to be
> > > smart enough to figure it out whether you're using apm
* Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> > > Adding:
> > >
> > > #
> > > # see if ac is online
> > > #
> > >
> > > if grep "on-li
Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> > Adding:
> >
> > #
> > # see if ac is online
> > #
> >
> > if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> Which will work, b
From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> Adding:
>
> #
> # see if ac is online
> #
>
> if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state > /dev/null 2>&1
Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed to be
smart enough
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Derek Broughton wrote:
> From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Except that since it is under /usr, it might not be available at fsck
> > time (that is, before /usr is mounted in /etc/rcS.d/S30checkfs.sh).
>
> Doh! Of course you're right. I wonder if it could be c
It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
Adding:
#
# see if ac is online
#
if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state
Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > * Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> > > Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > >
> > > > Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed
> to be
>
From: "Frédéric Bothamy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> > Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > >
> > > Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed
to be
> > > smart enough to figure it out whether you're using apm
* Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-09-01 19:29] :
> Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> > > Adding:
> > >
> > > #
> > > # see if ac is online
> > > #
> > >
> > > if grep "on-li
Hi,
Monday, September 1, 2003, 10:04,
Harry Brueckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
I don't know if /proc/acpi is up at the time fsck is run, but if it is,
then there's a file givin
Quoting Derek Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> > Adding:
> >
> > #
> > # see if ac is online
> > #
> >
> > if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state > /dev/null 2>&1
>
> Which will work, b
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
>
> I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> rescheduling for the next reboo
...
> I know how to turn them off completely but that's not what I really want to
> do. I do not want to get rid of the checks completely because its quite a
> good idea to check the FS from time to time. I just would like to have it
> limited to the times when there is a powersupply available.
From: "Matt Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
> Adding:
>
> #
> # see if ac is online
> #
>
> if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state > /dev/null 2>&1
Which will work, but there's an on_ac_power program that is supposed to be
smart enough
Hi again,
--On Monday, September 01, 2003 10:19:23 AM +0200 Albert Dengg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
...
Any idea how to get around the fsck run?
...
with `tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/hdaX` you can disable all automatic checks
(except for filesystem errors & not clean unmounted, I think)
...regardless
It's /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state on my system.
Adding:
#
# see if ac is online
#
if grep "on-line" /proc/acpi/ac_adapter/ACAD/state
Hi,
Monday, September 1, 2003, 10:04,
Harry Brueckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
I don't know if /proc/acpi is up at the time fsck is run, but if it is,
then there's a file givin
Hello,
is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
rescheduling for the next reboot (with powersupply available) would be very
nice. :-)
Any idea how to get ar
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Harry Brueckner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
> days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
>
> I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
> rescheduling for the next reboo
...
> I know how to turn them off completely but that's not what I really want to
> do. I do not want to get rid of the checks completely because its quite a
> good idea to check the FS from time to time. I just would like to have it
> limited to the times when there is a powersupply available.
Hi again,
--On Monday, September 01, 2003 10:19:23 AM +0200 Albert Dengg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
...
Any idea how to get around the fsck run?
...
with `tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/hdaX` you can disable all automatic checks
(except for filesystem errors & not clean unmounted, I think)
...regar
Hello,
is there a way to avoid the regular fsck run (every n mounts or after m
days) when the laptop is in battery mode?
I think its quite a waste of battery power for the fsck run and
rescheduling for the next reboot (with powersupply available) would be very
nice. :-)
Any idea how to get
64 matches
Mail list logo
