On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Evan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think both of these points are best addressed with a simple, non
>> obnoxious prompt on shutdown to run a fsck before shutting down, and
>> also givin
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Phillip Susi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think both of these points are best addressed with a simple, non
> obnoxious prompt on shutdown to run a fsck before shutting down, and
> also giving the option to put it off until tomorrow, next week, or never
> ask me
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>> One thing that I have not seen in this discussion is the notion that
>> fsck might be modified to run incrementally.
>
> That's an interesting idea, though I don't know enough about ext3 to comment
> on its feasibility. Perhaps something to discuss with upstream?
Not pos
Alexander Jones wrote:
> Because people are talking about snapshotting a FS in a potentially
> broken state, fscking it in the background---whilst continuing to use
> it!
I've been thinking something like this as well. The whole point of fsck
is to find and repair damage BEFORE your attempts to
Although this might start a small side-track of the main subject, I
would like to add that it would be cool if the new solution could also
incorporate checking of usb mass storage devices. Portable hard disks
are becoming more popular, formatting them with ext is becoming more
popular, but there do
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:15 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > == Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
> > >
> > > A suggestion was made to the technical board that
I've been trying out a script (attached) for the last few days, that
does something similar to the idea in my previous comment. It's a shell
script that can be put in cron.daily and/or called from an @reboot cron
job. The script checks each of your LVM-based filesystems in turn, and
won't start a
Alexander Jones wrote:
> Because people are talking about snapshotting a FS in a potentially
> broken state, fscking it in the background---whilst continuing to use
> it!
>
> Assuming that using a broken FS doesnt hose it (admittedly it
> shouldn't), merging a changeset from a broken state into a
Because people are talking about snapshotting a FS in a potentially
broken state, fscking it in the background---whilst continuing to use
it!
Assuming that using a broken FS doesnt hose it (admittedly it
shouldn't), merging a changeset from a broken state into a repaired
state is a process which I
Alexander Jones wrote:
> PLEASE redirect your efforts towards online fscking. This whole idea
> is absolutely horrible.
How so?
- Andrew
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listi
PLEASE redirect your efforts towards online fscking. This whole idea
is absolutely horrible.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Phillip Susi wrote:
> The snapshot was never mounted in the first place, so there is no need
> to unmount it.
>
> As you mentioned before however, any files changed since the snapshot
> was made will be lost when you reboot and merge the snapshot back to the
> main volume.
>
Either I'm not makin
ke, 2008-08-13 kello 18:33 -0400, Phillip Susi kirjoitti:
> Andrew Sayers wrote:
>
> > I assume that the equivalent of "umount $snapshot" is done within the
> > kernel when the snapshot is created, because it gives you a new
> > non-mounted block device. It's therefore possible to do fsck from cr
Andrew Sayers wrote:
> I assume that the equivalent of "umount $snapshot" is done within the
> kernel when the snapshot is created, because it gives you a new
> non-mounted block device. It's therefore possible to do fsck from cron.
The snapshot was never mounted in the first place, so there is
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 07:41:18AM +0800, Onno Benschop wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >>
> >>> == Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
> >>>
> >>> A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter
> >>> about how and when
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>>> == Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
>>>
>>> A suggestion was made to the technical board that Ubuntu could be smarter
>>> about how and when it performs filesystem integrity checks (fsck).
>>>
>>> Decision: This should
Seeing it from the perspective of an common user, fsck is something
whose function is unknown and therefore running it is senseless, so they
might turn if off directly or skip it always which is not good.
My idea:
-> Mount the partition read-only
-> Capture writes with something like AuFS/Union-F
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:15:05AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > == Filesystem checking / AutoFsck ==
> > >
> > > A suggestion was made to the technical boar
Apologies for replying to myself, but I remembered that Google exists :)
Apparently snapshot merging is currently in beta:
http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/LVM_Snapshot_Merging
Also apparently, LVM2 ensures filesystem integrity when creating
snapshots: http://tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/snapshotintro.htm
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The LVM solution isn't viable anyway; there's no guarantee that the metadata
> on disk is in any way consistent while the filesystem is mounted. The
> problem in your test isn't only that the filesystem is changing from
> underneath it, it's also that it may not have been c
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 06:17:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> ti, 2008-08-12 kello 15:07 +0100, Matt Zimmerman kirjoitti:
> > Indeed. The best we could do in a scenario like this would be to flag the
> > filesystem dirty so that it gets checked the next time it's possible.
>
> I assume you me
ti, 2008-08-12 kello 15:07 +0100, Matt Zimmerman kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:59:22PM +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
> > 2008/8/12 Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > A way to avoid that would be to set up systems with LVM, and use an LVM
> > > snapshot volume for running fsck. This
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Alexander Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/8/12 Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Paul S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
>>> I've had to reinstall.
2008/8/12 Mackenzie Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Paul S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
>> I've had to reinstall. Since I don't want to be forced into that again,
>> I'm trying to disable it perma
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Paul S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
> I've had to reinstall. Since I don't want to be forced into that again,
> I'm trying to disable it permanently and take my chances on losing a
> file here or
I've been bitten bad by e2fsck where it's borked my system such that
I've had to reinstall. Since I don't want to be forced into that again,
I'm trying to disable it permanently and take my chances on losing a
file here or there.
However, I can't seem to shut it off.
So far, I've used tune2fs
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 02:59:22PM +0100, Alexander Jones wrote:
> 2008/8/12 Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > A way to avoid that would be to set up systems with LVM, and use an LVM
> > snapshot volume for running fsck. This would give fsck a frozen snapshot
> > of the system, and should wor
2008/8/12 Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> A way to avoid that would be to set up systems with LVM, and use an LVM
> snapshot volume for running fsck. This would give fsck a frozen snapshot
> of the system, and should work better. However, it requires some free
> space to be used, and I haven'
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 08:57:36PM +1000, Ian Chennell wrote:
>
>
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> >
> > Some of the other ideas which have been proposed are:
>
ti, 2008-08-12 kello 20:57 +1000, Ian Chennell kirjoitti:
> If fsck is to run during shutdown, then there definitely needs to be a
> means to easily skip it, or perhaps defer it to run at the next startup.
> Many people (like me :P) leave it till the very last minute at work
> before doing an "exp
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:52:25AM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> Some of the other ideas which have been proposed are:
>
> Run fsck during shutdown (when the user isn't expecting to be able to use
>
31 matches
Mail list logo
