Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Ubuntu Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/)
-   -   regular fsck runs are too disturbing (http://www.linux-archive.org/ubuntu-development/11261-regular-fsck-runs-too-disturbing.html)

Dane Mutters 12-03-2007 02:59 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +0000, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=)
-- Fernando wrote:
> On Monday 22 October 2007 01:51:03 Dane Mutters wrote:
> > I think that there is an occasional need to check the file system for
> > errors, but I think that it might work better as an optional, but
> > "highly recommended" thing.
> >
> > Here's another case in point:
> >
> > I have been working to set up an Ubuntu-based Asterisk phone server at
> > my workplace. For this application, having to wait even 1 minute for
> > the system to reboot (if necessary) is barely tolerable, but if it ever
> > has to be restarted for any reason, and then insists on spending the
> > next 5 minutes doing a fsck, thus rendering the business phone-less,
> > that would surely make my employers very frustrated.
> >
> > I'm sure this has already been discussed, but I wish to add my opinion
> > to that of others who believe that a better solution is needed. Surely,
> > fsck is a really good idea, but for certain uses of Ubuntu, it's really
> > not practical. I'm sure that something else can be devised.
> >
> > Keep up the good work.
> >
> > --Dane
>
> Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on your server.
>

While I personally know how to use tune2fs to this effect, not
everybody else does. Also, it's rather easy to forget to set this. I
don't know if there is a better solution that running it at boot (I
realize that it's a bad idea to run fsck on a mounted drive), but it
would be nice to at least be able to cancel the check (assuming there's
not another solution that can run on a mounted FS).

--Dane


--
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

HggdH 12-04-2007 01:40 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +0000, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=)
-- Fernando wrote:

> Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on your server.

Yes, indeed this will do the trick. But it requires knowledge of some
quite arcane utilities -- not usually what the casual user has --, and
bypasses the basic issues:

1. fsck takes an inordinate long time for large filesystems;

We distribute Ubuntu with the installation by default in one single
monolithic filesystem (and most other distributions will do the same).
Of old this was no biggie, since the disks were (relatively) small. But,
nowadays, we usually get harddrives in excess of 100G.

Very few of us (based on my experience) will partition the HD. I have
had issues on Ubuntu on this (I *do* run many partitions), with software
updates putting critical system utilities in /usr/[s]bin instead
of /[s]bin -- which causes some rather bad errors on boot (/usr is a
mount point on my systems)

2. a generic ~30 mounts per check is too short an interval.

Although this is probably good enough for desktop systems, it breaks
fast on laptops. I, for example, boot my laptop at least twice a day --
so, on my personal case, I will have a forced check in (usually) less
than 2 weeks time. If I were to be running a single fs, it would take
about 25 minutes for it to complete. Fortunately for me, since I broke
my install in many filesystems, not all of them get done at the same
time.

[as an example, I have seem my wife get out of her laptop in disgust
when such a check started. And, of course, blast me for that :-)]

3. taking out the check is potentially dangerous in the long run.

A direct question here is: how long can such a check be postponed? This
question has not yet been answered, and we have people either disabling
(via tune2fs or friends), or putting in some arbritary values.

What we need is some consensus on how to deal with it.

-x-x-x-x-x-x-

I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks
are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such
checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also.

Perhaps a way would be a routine to prompt the user for a check next
reboot, and be increasingly more vocal if the user keeps on postponing
the check:

* This system has run for xxx (days|months|boots|whatever)
* without a FS check. Do you want this check performed
* next boot?
*
* [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] postpone for now

And then the routine would set a flag to be read by something next boot.



--
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

Devin Beaulieu 12-04-2007 02:02 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
Couldnt fsck be run periodically in read-only mode during normal
operation (ie. while the disks are mounted), and if an error is detected
ask for a restart so fsck will be run during boot-up?

I am not aware of how fsck operates, so this may not be possible.

On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:40 -0600, HggdH wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-12-02 at 22:55 +0000, (=?utf-8?q?=60=60-=5F-=C2=B4=C2=B4?=)
> -- Fernando wrote:
>
> > Dane , you can manually bypass this by using tune2fs, and disable the fsck on your server.
>
> Yes, indeed this will do the trick. But it requires knowledge of some
> quite arcane utilities -- not usually what the casual user has --, and
> bypasses the basic issues:
>
> 1. fsck takes an inordinate long time for large filesystems;
>
> We distribute Ubuntu with the installation by default in one single
> monolithic filesystem (and most other distributions will do the same).
> Of old this was no biggie, since the disks were (relatively) small. But,
> nowadays, we usually get harddrives in excess of 100G.
>
> Very few of us (based on my experience) will partition the HD. I have
> had issues on Ubuntu on this (I *do* run many partitions), with software
> updates putting critical system utilities in /usr/[s]bin instead
> of /[s]bin -- which causes some rather bad errors on boot (/usr is a
> mount point on my systems)
>
> 2. a generic ~30 mounts per check is too short an interval.
>
> Although this is probably good enough for desktop systems, it breaks
> fast on laptops. I, for example, boot my laptop at least twice a day --
> so, on my personal case, I will have a forced check in (usually) less
> than 2 weeks time. If I were to be running a single fs, it would take
> about 25 minutes for it to complete. Fortunately for me, since I broke
> my install in many filesystems, not all of them get done at the same
> time.
>
> [as an example, I have seem my wife get out of her laptop in disgust
> when such a check started. And, of course, blast me for that :-)]
>
> 3. taking out the check is potentially dangerous in the long run.
>
> A direct question here is: how long can such a check be postponed? This
> question has not yet been answered, and we have people either disabling
> (via tune2fs or friends), or putting in some arbritary values.
>
> What we need is some consensus on how to deal with it.
>
> -x-x-x-x-x-x-
>
> I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks
> are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such
> checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also.
>
> Perhaps a way would be a routine to prompt the user for a check next
> reboot, and be increasingly more vocal if the user keeps on postponing
> the check:
>
> * This system has run for xxx (days|months|boots|whatever)
> * without a FS check. Do you want this check performed
> * next boot?
> *
> * [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] postpone for now
>
> And then the routine would set a flag to be read by something next boot.
>
>
>


--
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

Neal McBurnett 12-04-2007 02:03 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 08:40:25AM -0600, HggdH wrote:
> I am guessing what we would need here is a reanalysis of how the checks
> are done, and what could be changed to minimise the impact of such
> checks. I would expect changes in the filesystems also.

You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at
least one official blueprint:

https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec

You can try AutoFsck:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck

Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/
--
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

Dane Mutters 12-04-2007 03:50 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:03 -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. And this issue has at
> least one official blueprint:
>
> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec
>
> You can try AutoFsck:
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck

Autofsck looks like it would do the trick, IMHO. It would eliminate the
nastiness of a 10+ minute boot time, and still go a long way to protect
against filesystem corruption.

--Dane


--
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

Evan 12-04-2007 09:22 PM

regular fsck runs are too disturbing
 
Autofsck does look like the way to go. Especially nice would be the option to run a manual fsck, although that might already be an option ('a test can be run' or is that something else?). I'm definitely in favour of this.


On Dec 4, 2007 11:50 AM, Dane Mutters <dmutters@gmail.com> wrote:


On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 08:03 -0700, Neal McBurnett wrote:
> You're right - a deeper analysis is needed. *And this issue has at
> least one official blueprint:
>
>
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/prompt-for-fsck-on-shutdown
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsckspec
>
> You can try AutoFsck:

> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AutoFsck

Autofsck looks like it would do the trick, IMHO. *It would eliminate the
nastiness of a 10+ minute boot time, and still go a long way to protect

against filesystem corruption.

--Dane


--
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



--
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


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:18 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.