similar to: Question Regarding e2fsck

Hi. I'm using Debian. Is this a Redhat-only list, or is it only hosted by RedHat? I recently changed my filing systems over to ext3, but deliberately left the forced boot check parameters alone so my system checks after 20 mounts. I notice that the fsck takes a good ten times longer than under ext2, to perform the cleanly unmounted check. (On the occasion where I did unmount dirtily, the

I have a large (1.5TB) partition with millions of files on it. e2fsck has been running nearly 12 hours and is still on "Checking directory structure". Any tips for speeding this along? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20100831/8653d551/attachment-0002.html>

Hi all, I am syncing call files on my secondary asterisk server but without permission to read for asterisk. So they should be executed when I grant the right permissions (thats when my primary asterisk server crashes or shutsdown somehow). But asterisk only tries to read the file at the time of placing the file. So when i grant right permissions nothing happens. Is there any workaround to this

Hi, Is it possible do have fsck to run automatically [without operator intervention], if it was not a clean shutdown. Right now, somebody has to bring a monitor & keyboard and say Y, if not it will not run and verify the drive. This is for remote headless servers. -- Thanks http://www.911networks.com

How big is a file that e2fsck considers it to be a large file? 814611 blocks used (42.79%) 0 bad blocks 1 large file <----- that Thanks John Nelson

Hi, yesterday I ran e2fsck -n on a mounted file system and got: /dev/sdb1 contains a file system with errors, check forced. According to Ted, the lines that followed were not to be trusted due to the fact that the file system was mounted. But this error statement suggests to run a check with the fs unmounted. Today, we scheduled a downtime and ran the check. It came of completely clean: ~:

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 11:24:51PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > The "get root inode failed" is rather unfortunate. Heh, I like your understatement. :) I think this helps answer part of my questions in my second email: I should probably try to preserve changes from last backup before getting too deep into a tricky e2fsck. At one point the fs was still mountable, so I

Hi, I'm on kernel 2.14.13-ac8 running Redhat 7.1. I've successfully converted all my file system to ext3 and is working fine for a couple of weeks. However, I did a silly thing when I e2fsck (version 1.23) an ext3 /home partiction without umounting it. Now, I believe my partiton super-block is corrupted and the system wasn't able to mount /home. I tried as suggested to do a e2fsck -b

Hi, on all of my CentOS7 VMs on different hypervisors the config file e2fsck.conf contains the line broken_system_clock = 1 I found this because on all of them, the root partition was not checked triggered by interval setting with tune2fs. Do you see similiar /default/ settings on your machines? Is it an issue only on VMs? I have no CentOS7 host on bare metal to compare. Thanks and cheers,

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 08:54:24PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: > > Heh, I like your understatement. :) I think this helps answer part of > my questions in my second email: I should probably try to preserve > changes from last backup before getting too deep into a tricky e2fsck. > At one point the fs was still mountable, so I could have tried to copy > files off first. (In a

e2fsck returns 1 in case of "file system errors corrected". We treat it as success in normal e2fsck, but fail if e2fsck is run by resize2fs. Change 'manual' execution of e2fsck to dedicated function call. --- daemon/ext2.c | 14 ++++---------- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/ext2.c b/daemon/ext2.c index 5dd67c7..95a65ae 100644 ---

We have CENTOS 5.5 run on DELL server.?? Due to power system crash, server been down and up. I would like use 'e2fsck" to check file systems. Does there has way to run "e2fsck" under following conditions: 1. file systems are all ext3 2. file systems must mount. 3. e2fsck only scan file system but NO modify Thanks.

Hi! I had problem yesterday with e2fsck. It reported a bad superblock. I then tried to use one of the other superblocks. To no avail. Then later I remembered that I had switched the fs type to xfs. Maybe e2fsck could recognize other common fs types, and report this instead? best regards keld

Hi I'm experiencing some problems on a harddisk (it has crashed for no known reason), and in pursuit of getting some of the data out of the disk I'm learning to use the e2fs progs package. Origianlly I used version 1.38, but after experiencing segfaults in e2fsck -which now is solved, I upgraded to 1.39, but now I have hit another problem (on another partition): The partition was

Unfortunately, there has been a huge number of bug fixes for ext4's online resize since 2.6.32 and 1.42.11. It's quite possible that you hit one of them. > The 51.8% seems very suspicious to me. A few weeks ago, I did an online > resize2fs, and the original filesystem was about 52% the size of the new > one (from 2.7TB to 5.3TB). The resize2fs didn't report any errors, and

Hi I got a strange error, happening on two of my ext3 partitions. What can be wrong? And why does e2fsck error out, instead of displaying an error message? Best regards keld fsck /dev/hda6 fsck 1.38 (30-Jun-2005) e2fsck 1.38 (30-Jun-2005) Warning... fsck.ext3 for device /dev/hda6 exited with signal 11. also From my dmesg: <1>general protection fault: e7a8 [#3] Modules linked in:

Helping a friend fix a computer that was having severe, weird troubles. Reformatted (from XP) and installed Fedora. Install went ok, on first boot, however, filesystem was READONLY for some reason. Knew hard drive was suspect, so I e2fsck'd it over and over all night long, fall asleep next to the computer. This morning, Fedora boots fine, login not a problem, so I shut down and fsck it again,

Hi! I would like to know how well ext3/(ext2) will tolerate underlaying errors (I am planning to use loop-AES backed ext3 fs). So if there is 1024 bytes corruption of data what will be the worst case: - If this data belongs to some file, this part of data(file) has been lost? - If this data belongs to superblock, I have to repair ext3 and use another superblock? - If this data belongs to

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 09:46:02 +0100 (BST) John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Gabriele Pohl wrote: > > I now changed the value to 0 and rebooted. > > > > After that fsck based on Interval setting were done. > > > > Unfortunately that is not true for the root partition. > > For that I had to use maxCount settings to

hi, i have a tricky situation here and and don't know where to start with the solution. i happened to set up a linux system, but i had to install the base system on another machine. i used e2fsprogs 1.30-WIP (30-Sep-2002) for this. now the machine is up and running, but i have to use e2fsprogs 1.27 (8-Mar-2002). it's a debian system and i wanted to stay sane & stable, hence using