Re: Skipping fsck during boot with systemd?
2014-12-08 11:44 GMT+01:00 claude juif <email@example.com>:
> 2014-12-08 10:28 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Marchal
>> Le Monday 08 December 2014 09:44:07, Curt a écrit :
>> > On 2014-12-08, Stefan Monnier <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > > Actually, it's *always* a surprise. These fsck happen at long enough
>> > > intervals, that I can never know if it was "4 months ago" or "7 months
>> > > ago", and neither can I remember which laptop/desktop has the delay
>> > > set
>> > > to 172 days vs 194 days vs 98 days vs ...
>> > Can't you write a small script to obviate the limitations of your human
>> > memory, like this little hacker here did?
>> I'm joining in as Gentoo doesn't allow me to cancel fsck and it is a real
>> PITA. I much prefer the flexibility offered by Debian. If I'm in a hurry,
>> I just
>> cancel fsck and restart the computer later to let it run fsck completely.
>> On my Gentoo box, the ext partition is set to scan the disk every 34 boots
>> after 180 days. There is no way I can keep track of the number of boots as
>> three other people use that computer and turn it on when I'm not around. A
>> script wouldn't help either. What would it have to report to be of any use
>> letting me know that the *next* boot will take one hour? Even I can't tell
>> when someone will need the computer.
> Maybe you just have to make partitions. Il your rootfs is 1To it's gonna
> take 2 hours to run fsck, but if you have smaller partition like
> - / => 10G
> - /usr => 10G
> /data => 1To, it's gonna take 5 mins.
> Just update your fsck to check only / and /usr so you know your system is
> clean. And you can run run fsck yourself for /data.
/, /var and /tmp already are very small partitions. The 1TB disk is
the home partition where all the important data are. I can't split it
up and I don't feel comfortable with the idea of running fsck only
when and if I remember to do it. The computer is there to serve me,
not the other way around!
> So you are in control !
That's not being in control. That's doing chores the system is making
more difficult to deal with. I would rather spend the time doing
something with the computer than for the computer.
> You can't ask developer to handle every single case of your life.
A feature was lost and I say it was useful to me and, apparently, a
bunch of people.
The proposals so far imply more bookkeeping and/or maintenance tasks
on my part. Maintenance tasks are necessary. But, in the case
discussed here, there used to be a simpler solution. I don't want the
developers to assume the current non-interruptible fsck solution is
satisfactory to everyone. Nor is the no-fsck-at-all solution
acceptable to everybody.
Now, I would accept a solution simpler than "let fsck run
automatically from time to time or press ctrl+c to run it later" but
none comes to my mind.