[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Corrupted FS every 50 checks



Hanspeter Spalinger wrote:
> Merciadri Luca wrote:
> > problem is that I always get errors when e2fsck verifies the fs, and
> > always on the same: /dev/sdc5.  ...
> > but I can't understand why this filesystem is problematic, because I
> > don't use it often, at least these times. I always have errors about the
>
> Do you actualy FIX those errors? Afaik the fsck at startup does not fix
> all errors (it plays safe). Try run fsck manualy (but make a backup
> first and read the man-page).

The control for this is in /etc/default/rcS with the FSCKFIX
variable.  If it is set to no then no fix happens.  If it is set to
yes then at boot time fsck is enabled to automatically fix what it
can.

In /etc/default/rcS file:
  FSCKFIX=yes

Note that if it is set to no on a remote server that you do not have
console access to then it is possible to get into a state where the
machine will not reboot on its own because it will be waiting for
console access to get past the fsck questions.

These are documented in the rcS man page.

  $ man rcS

       FSCKFIX
              When the root and all other file systems are checked,
              fsck is invoked with the -a option which means
              "autorepair".  If there are major inconsistencies then
              the fsck process will bail out.  The system will print a
              message asking the administrator to repair the file
              system manually and will present a root shell prompt
              (actually a sulogin prompt) on the console.  Setting
              this option to yes causes the fsck commands to be run
              with the -y option instead of the -a option.  This will
              tell fsck always to repair the file systems without
              asking for permission.

> I assume you use the other partitions more often, with no error, so i
> don't think your problem is hardware related.

A good diagnosis!  But I would still look to be sure.  :-)

Bob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: