Chris Bannister wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > >> A proactive admin should be aware of these things and schedule
> > >> appropriate preventative maintenance.
> > >
> > > May I suggest Qualitative Maintenance as a better strategy.
> > >
> > > http://asset
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:48:26AM +, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-06-25, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:52:46PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> >>
> >> A proactive admin should be aware of these things and schedule
> >> appropriate preventative maintenance.
> >
> > May I suggest Q
On 2014-06-25, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:52:46PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>
>> A proactive admin should be aware of these things and schedule
>> appropriate preventative maintenance.
>
> May I suggest Qualitative Maintenance as a better strategy.
>
> http://assetinsight
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 11:52:46PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> A proactive admin should be aware of these things and schedule
> appropriate preventative maintenance.
May I suggest Qualitative Maintenance as a better strategy.
http://assetinsights.net/Glossary/G_Qualitative_Maintenance.html
(as
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 23:52:46 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> $ man fsck.ext4
Ok, my bad 'cos I didn't re-read this for a long time,
time where -a was different from -p.
So, as fixes are those that won't need user's touch,
I agree to your argument :)
--
BOFH excuse #345:
Having to manually track t
B wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > Erasing error output just doesn't erase the cause,
> > > and the cause might be very dangerous to the system's
> > > health...
> >
> > Erasing the error output? Why are you erasing error output? I
> > never suggested any such thing.
>
> So you're following
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 23:55:11 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Erasing error output just doesn't erase the cause,
> > and the cause might be very dangerous to the system's
> > health…
>
> Erasing the error output? Why are you erasing error output? I
> never suggested any such thing.
So you're follo
Tom H wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Martin Richard wrote:
> >> In fact fsck or the mount operation before fsck stalls (usually because of
> >> xfs), so I never get to the recovery shell.
> >
> > xfs? The X Font Server? How is xfs involved? I am sure it is really
> > something else.
>
> More li
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:48 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Martin Richard wrote:
>>
>> In fact fsck or the mount operation before fsck stalls (usually because of
>> xfs), so I never get to the recovery shell.
>
> xfs? The X Font Server? How is xfs involved? I am sure it is really
> something else.
M
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:48:49PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Martin Richard wrote:
> > In fact fsck or the mount operation before fsck stalls (usually because of
> > xfs), so I never get to the recovery shell.
>
> xfs? The X Font Server? How is xfs involved? I am sure it is really
> something
B wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > What practical alternative suggestion do you have in response?
>
> First, try to understand why fsck has failed; is it
> "just a small error"?, may be due to a power failure,
> or is it a big failure? may be due to the HD falling
> apart.
> What exactly failed,
Martin Richard wrote:
> In fact fsck or the mount operation before fsck stalls (usually because of
> xfs), so I never get to the recovery shell.
xfs? The X Font Server? How is xfs involved? I am sure it is really
something else.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
2014-06-17 10:22 GMT+02:00 Martin Richard :
>
> I'll explore the ssh solution, see if starting a daemon in the initramfs
> can give me what I want.
>
A quick follow-up:
Starting an ssh daemon in initramfs was complicated, in particular, once
the real root filesystem is set, the connection become
2014-06-16 18:21 GMT+02:00 B :
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:54:13 +0200
> Martin Richard wrote:
>
> I don't know if that is possible, but you can setup an
> early SSH access.
>
That's what I read most of the time, but I don't understand why ssh would
be able to do what I want and not getty.
201
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:34:58 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> What practical alternative suggestion do you have in response?
First, try to understand why fsck has failed; is it
"just a small error"?, may be due to a power failure,
or is it a big failure? may be due to the HD falling
apart.
What exactly
B wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > That will automatically run "fsck -y" at boot time. See the
>
> This is terribly dangerous and might rid all possibilities to
> recover sensitive data.
What practical alternative suggestion do you have in response? Please
don't just say don't do it out of FU
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:09:02 -0600
Bob Proulx wrote:
> That will automatically run "fsck -y" at boot time. See the
This is terribly dangerous and might rid all
possibilities to recover sensitive data.
--
Phil: Infect a computer running Vista with a virus
is like raping a hooker...
sig
Martin Richard wrote:
> I would like to configure an access to a console during runlevel 1.The idea
> is that sometimes, checkfs (performed at runlevel 1) may hang, and I'd like
> to have access to a terminal to confirm.
If the system needs to run an fsck and if the fsck fails I have always
had it
On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:54:13 +0200
Martin Richard wrote:
> I would like to configure an access to a console during runlevel
> 1.The idea is that sometimes, checkfs (performed at runlevel 1)
> may hang, and I'd like to have access to a terminal to confirm.
I don't know if that is possible, but yo
Hi,
I would like to configure an access to a console during runlevel 1.The idea
is that sometimes, checkfs (performed at runlevel 1) may hang, and I'd like
to have access to a terminal to confirm.
I tried to start getty on a tty as soon as possible in inittab but it does
not work as expected.
in
20 matches
Mail list logo
