On Tue 2007-05-29 13:05:29, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Monday May 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 05:39:11PM +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Right. Could we get more helpful message here? 'Filesystem check on
> > > next boot on AC power'?
> >
> > So "(check deferred; on batt
Hi!
> > Right. Could we get more helpful message here? 'Filesystem check on
> > next boot on AC power'?
>
> So "(check deferred; on battery)" wasn't explicit enough? I guess I
> assumed that users would understand that the opposite of "on battery"
> was "on AC power". I guess I could say "(che
On Monday May 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 05:39:11PM +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Right. Could we get more helpful message here? 'Filesystem check on
> > next boot on AC power'?
>
> So "(check deferred; on battery)" wasn't explicit enough? I guess I
> assumed that us
On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 05:39:11PM +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Right. Could we get more helpful message here? 'Filesystem check on
> next boot on AC power'?
So "(check deferred; on battery)" wasn't explicit enough? I guess I
assumed that users would understand that the opposite of "on battery"
Hi!
> > But here's what I've got:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/pavel# fsck.ext2 -f /dev/hda3
> > e2fsck 1.38 (30-Jun-2005)
> > Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> > Inode 371989 has illegal block(s). Clear? yes
> >
> > Illegal block #2 (134217728) in inode 371989. CLEARED.
> > Pass
Hello,
> But here's what I've got:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/pavel# fsck.ext2 -f /dev/hda3
> e2fsck 1.38 (30-Jun-2005)
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Inode 371989 has illegal block(s). Clear? yes
>
> Illegal block #2 (134217728) in inode 371989. CLEARED.
> Pass 2: Checking
Hi!
> > > #1, This is why periodic checks are a good thing; it catches problems
> > > that could stay hidden and result in data loss sooner rather later.
> >
> > Actually, I see something funny with periodic checks here. It claims
> > 'filesystem check on next boot' for >10 boots now.
> >
> > It
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:55:26PM +, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > #1, This is why periodic checks are a good thing; it catches problems
> > that could stay hidden and result in data loss sooner rather later.
>
> Actually, I see something funny with periodic checks here. It claims
> 'filesystem che
Hi!
> > > How do you know that the corruption was caused by 2.6.21-rc1 ?
> > > Isn't it possible that the corruption was created by an earlier
> > > kernel, but only detected when a forced fsck was run - which just
> > > happened to be while you were running 2.6.21-rc1 ...
> > >
> > > My poi
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:35:29PM +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > How do you know that the corruption was caused by 2.6.21-rc1 ?
> > Isn't it possible that the corruption was created by an earlier
> > kernel, but only detected when a forced fsck was run - which just
> > happened to be while y
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 04:20:39PM +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 18/05/07, Martin Mokrejs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
> > hit in the past still exists. I did use 2.6.20.6 so far. So, I have
> > cleanly rebooted to u
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 07:38:18PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 15:51 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:17:06PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:06 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 ca
On 18/05/07, Martin Mokrejs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
hit in the past still exists. I did use 2.6.20.6 so far. So, I have
cleanly rebooted to use the new kernel, after the machine came up I
tried to mess with the bug, and
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 15:51 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:17:06PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:06 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
> > > hit in the past still ex
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 05:17:06PM +0530, Kalpak Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:06 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
> > hit in the past still exists. I did use 2.6.20.6 so far. So, I have
> > cleanly rebooted t
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:06 +0200, Martin Mokrejs wrote:
> Hi,
> I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
> hit in the past still exists. I did use 2.6.20.6 so far. So, I have
> cleanly rebooted to use the new kernel, after the machine came up I
> tried to mess with
On Fri, 18 May 2007 11:06:04 +0200
Martin Mokrejs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bubbled:
> I cannot say what is the fsck version, but I can tell you this is a
> Gentoo linux box in the ~x86 tree, so whatever is in the "unstable"
> branch. :(
FYI:
# eix e2fs
[I] sys-fs/e2fsprogs
Available versions:
Hi,
I just tried the 2.6.22-r1 candidate to test whether some bug I have
hit in the past still exists. I did use 2.6.20.6 so far. So, I have
cleanly rebooted to use the new kernel, after the machine came up I
tried to mess with the bug, and had to reboot again to play with kernel
commandline
18 matches
Mail list logo
