Chuck Swiger wrote:
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Just to clarify: running "fsck /" (read-only) in multiuser mode
takes less than a minute. fsck at boot takes approx. 50 times that
long!
...and yes, that difference is not reasonable. Are you using bgfsck
or not...?
Hm, what do you mean?
I'd gl
On 5/12/06, Andrea Venturoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cwaeth:
"one big root partition."
Don't do this.
--
--
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Just to clarify: running "fsck /" (read-only) in multiuser mode
takes less than a minute. fsck at boot takes approx. 50 times that
long!
...and yes, that difference is not reasonable. Are you using bgfsck
or not...?
Hm, what do you mean?
I'd gladly let my system fsc
Daniel Bye wrote:
Yeah, I realise that. I'm afraid I don't know why fsck should take so
long on your disk. Chuck suggested some things you might try, though.
Yeah, sorry, my fault. I intended to answer on the ml, but instead I
mailed him privately.
It sounds to me like it might be fail
Chuck Swiger wrote:
OK, I agree that this doesn't sound like a hardware problem with the
drive now that you've tested it, but it was at least worth looking at.
Ok, thanks for pointing it out, anyway :)
Just to clarify: running "fsck /" (read-only) in multiuser mode takes
less than a minute
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Daniel Bye wrote:
>
> >So, as jerry said, it's a Bad Idea to have just one partition, for many
> >reasons, this being among them.
>
>
> Ok, I know that. Still this wasn't the point of my request. I've been
> answered the first
Daniel Bye wrote:
So, as jerry said, it's a Bad Idea to have just one partition, for many
reasons, this being among them.
Ok, I know that. Still this wasn't the point of my request. I've been
answered the first questions, but I'm still wondering on the second one...
bye & Thanks
a
Bill Moran wrote:
First of all: I believe that fsck should run in background, but it
doesn't. How can I tell why?
From my desktop:
mount
/dev/ad0s1a on / (ufs, local)
devfs on /dev (devfs, local)
Note that / does not have soft-updates, which I believe is the default.
AFAIR, fsck can not do
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:58:23AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:
> Andrea Venturoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> > I've got a i386/6.1 box with only one big root partition.
> > The problem is that, whenever the machine is not properly shutdown, fsck
> > on boot takes eons.
> >
> > First
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Then, back to the heart of the problem, why does it take so long? It's
a 9GB SCSI disk and it should be quite fast, although a bit old; it's
speed is for sure enough for day to day work.
Back in the 5.x times fsck used to last definitely less than 5
minutes. After I upgr
Andrea Venturoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
> I've got a i386/6.1 box with only one big root partition.
> The problem is that, whenever the machine is not properly shutdown, fsck
> on boot takes eons.
>
> First of all: I believe that fsck should run in background, but it
> doesn't. How
>
> Hello.
> I've got a i386/6.1 box with only one big root partition.
> The problem is that, whenever the machine is not properly shutdown, fsck
> on boot takes eons.
That is one of the reasons for not making the whole system
one big root partition. It will not finish booting until root
is cl
Hello.
I've got a i386/6.1 box with only one big root partition.
The problem is that, whenever the machine is not properly shutdown, fsck
on boot takes eons.
First of all: I believe that fsck should run in background, but it
doesn't. How can I tell why?
Then, back to the heart of the problem
13 matches
Mail list logo
