Re: confused Re: running fsck out of a script; drive never shows being checked
On Wednesday 09 June 2004 10:59 am, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > It isn't mounted normally. It isn't mounted before fscking it.
>
> good... but i'd add the umount to the script, just to make sure
> nothing breaks
Wellll, I guess yes, that's not a bad plan, just in case. Instead of relying
on the previous night's run to have umounted it.
> > No, I shouldn't. Especially since all 42 reports are completely
> > uneventful runs. The "-n" option is supposed to keep it from doing
> > anything without asking me, and presumably if there ever *is* a problem,
> > I'll see it the next morning and can intervene manually.
> wondering why you'd want to continuously ( daily ) check the fs ..
I've been ridiculously paranoid ever since a hard disk crash I had a couple
years ago.
> interesting idea with fsck -n ...
Seemed to be the only way to run it out of a non-interactive shell.
>
> sounds like the script didnt do anything, because when you mount(?) it,
> it says ( running e2fsck since its been mounted 42 times w/o fsck'ing )
> - a good sign, in this case
Running it from the command line produces the same results. It looks like it
is in fact doing something, and that it would probably report trouble if it
ever found any. Kinda hard to test that theory unless I mount the drive and
then hit the power button on purpose or something. :)
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <dmmcintyr@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
Reply to: