At 7:22 AM -0600 12/31/07, HggdH wrote:
> > - for people with several disks: when a fsck is
>> needed for a disk, add the option to run the fsck on all the disks,
>> even if it is not needed yet;
>> this would minimize how often the user will be
>> prompted for a fsck, as all the disks would b
> - for people with several disks: when a fsck is
> needed for a disk, add the option to run the fsck on all the disks,
> even if it is not needed yet;
> this would minimize how often the user will be
> prompted for a fsck, as all the disks would be
> checked simultaneously.
I agree with all,
At 12:15 PM -0500 12/26/07, Phillip Susi wrote:
>Chris Martin wrote:
>> I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth
>> (1) At shutdown is good
>> (2) Timeout/interuptable is good
>> (3) BUT. The default action should be ³No Action²
>>
>> At shutdown
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: might there be something to gain by using a
> different file system (Reiser4, XFS, JFS)?
That is a point I have made a few times now; none of those other
filesystems require a periodic fsck, but they are not magically better
than ext3, so there
Chris Martin wrote:
> I have been following this and I thought I would add my 2 cents worth
> (1) At shutdown is good
> (2) Timeout/interuptable – is good
> (3) BUT. The default action should be “No Action”
>
> At shutdown the user is prompted that a file system check is required
>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 09:37:35AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in
> favor of dropping the check completely, since occasionally, things
> just go wrong, and you never notice until you actually run a check.
Any severe corruption is lik
> Of course then there's the laptop angle.
> My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left. One day I either
> need a new laptop or to pony up a thousand for a shiny new model.
> Anyways--I usually hit shutdown, unplug everything and throw it in my bag.
>
> It would definitely run o
> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
Of course then there's the laptop angle.
My old POS laptop has about 3 minutes of battery life left. One day I either
need a new laptop or to pony up a thous
AIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan
> Musther
> *Sent:* Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:54 AM
> *To:* Aurélien Naldi
> *Cc:* ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
> *Subject:* Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
>
>
>
> If it was moved to
: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: Re: fsck on boot is major usability issue
If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.
I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
then closed
To try to answer the question of whether we could simply disable the
periodic fsck, I decided to ask Mingming Cao, one of the developers
who has worked on ext3 and later, ext4. I just got the following:
"Periodically fsck ext3 is still needed, even if ext3 is a journalled fs.
kernel code vm/fs co
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:09 -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when on battery?
But there are definitely people who rarely or never use the laptop while
plugged in. E.g., they may charge overnight, unplug and take the laptop
on the road, replugging in the
With the battery issue. Can we not just check and never run (auto)fsck when
on battery?
I personally thought the entire point of journalled file-systems was to not
have to do this kind of check. In fact getting rid of this kind of thing was
one of the great features of NTFS over FAT (on windows).
If it was moved to shutdown, I would assume that the user would be able to
skip it, or better yet they would be prompted.
I have been contacted by autofsck users who have turned off a laptop and
then closed the lid immediately (or turned off a desktop and immediately
switched off the monitor) and
Jonathan Musther wrote:
> It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an
> interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown?
fsck at shutdown is good.
back in the day, i used to use a hardware checking tool on mac os (i think it
was called tech tools), iirc the d
Just out of curiosity: might there be something to gain by using a
different file system (Reiser4, XFS, JFS)?
-- Morten
--
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
On ven, 2007-12-21 at 08:13 -0500, Evan wrote:
> My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
> interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
I'm not sure that moving it to shutdown is a proper solution. Think
about a laptop shuting down because its bat
My personal preference would be to move it to shut-down, but an
interruptable check on boot is better than nothing. Just my two cents.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-dev
It would be interesting to hear how people feel about having an
interruptible check on boot, versus moving the check to shutdown?
Certainly an interruptible check is an improvement, but is it still lacking
in usability?
Also, would the user have to skip the check within a timeout (something like
Hi,
Jonathan Musther [2007-12-21 9:16 +1300]:
> I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that
> recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a
> 'just in case' filesystem check.
We quickly discussed this at the last UDS. Most people were not in
f
On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 22:17 +0100, Mario Vukelic wrote:
> When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by
> Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's
> been a long time though, and searching now turns up nothing definitive
> for me.
Ah, I think I fou
On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 09:44 +1300, Jonathan Musther wrote:
> I would very much like to hear from somebody on the ext3 team about
> this.
When ext3 was new, I am pretty certain that I have read quotes by
Theodore T'so that he does not recommend turning off the checks. It's
been a long time though,
I've spent a lot of time looking for the reasoning behind still doing the
checks, all I've found is anecdotal evidence, some people say they have
first hand experience of errors creeping in, which were then fixed by fsck.
On the other hand some people, although a small number, have turned them off
Jonathan Musther wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that
> recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a
> 'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author
> of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which
Hi,
I'm new to this list, I joined it because I saw in the archive that
recently you were discussing the problem with running fsck on boot as a
'just in case' filesystem check. I joined the list because I'm the author
of AutoFsck, the script you discussed which effectively moves fsck to
shutdown
25 matches
Mail list logo
