similar to: How to stagger fsck executions

From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 > > Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't > take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root > filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. > everything else. I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to avoid 70 minute boot times (which is

From: Mark Milhollan Sent: April 21, 2015 05:35 > On Mon, 20 Apr 2015, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > >CentOS 6 > > >From ''man fstab'' ... > > The sixth field, (fs_passno), is used by the fsck(8) > program to determine the order > in which filesystem checks are done at reboot time. > The root filesystem should be >

From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random > > count value. This would run the risk of having two or more > > executions at the same time but it would probably not be very > > frequent. > > Using "tune2fs -c", set the

From: Warren Young Sent: April 21, 2015 14:13 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > >> > >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set > >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to > 23, and the > >> fourth to 29. > > > > Thanks but

From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30 > > On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I > am willing > > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. > > Why do you accept that? Every article I have read on the

From: Warren Young Sent: April 22, 2015 20:46 > On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank > <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > > > I have done some "what if" testing. > > Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up > yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I cobbled something together in OpenEdge ABL. I have uploaded

On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > CentOS 6 > > Hi All: > > Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with > fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except > doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to > stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been > able to

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > I have done some "what if" testing. Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I?ve updated mine to break out the stats for 3+ volumes instead of just reporting all multi-volume fscks together:

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 >> >> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't >> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root >> filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. >>

On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 >> >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to 23, and the >> fourth to 29. > > Thanks but that is not much different then my second idea and does not > fully

On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. Why do you accept that? The default behavior for filesystems set up by Red Hat tools (anaconda) is not to fsck. Not by mount count, nor by time.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > CentOS 6 > > > My first idea was to manually run fsck on each filesystem, one every > couple of weeks. That way they will not all come due at the same time > if we reboot on a regular basis. > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This

On 4/20/2015 9:08 PM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random count > value. This would run the risk of having two or more executions at > the same time but it would probably not be very frequent. > > Does anyone have a suggestion for a better way of doing this? use XFS, no fsck's until/unless something catastrophic happens

Hi there, I'm running software raid 1 across two 60GB IDE drives and booting off the raid device. The raid device holds an ext3 filesystem. Each drive is configured as a master on its own bus. The system is redhat 7.2, stock kernel 2.4.9-31smp. The hardware platform is a Dell precision dual 2Ghz P4 system with 1G of memory. I have two of these systems, both configured identitically.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > > Thanks but changing the order of execution or executing them in > parallel does not help with executing them one per reboot. Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root filesystem normally runs

Hi, I run several hundred servers that are used heavily (webhosting, etc.) all day long. Quite often we'll have a server that either needs a really long fsck (10 hours - 200 gig drive) or an fsck that evntually results in everything going to lost+found (pretty much a total loss). Would rebooting these servers monthly (or some other frequency) stop this? Is it correct to visualize this as

I can't seem to find the answer to this question via web search... I changed some hardware on a server, and upon powering it back on, got the "/dev/xxx has gone 40 days without being check, check forced" message. Now it's running fsck on a huge (2 TB) ext3 filesystem (5400 RPM drives no less). How can I stop this in-progress check? Ctrl-C doesn't seem to have any effect.

Hello. Is there a simple way, at a shell script level, of finding out whether an ext3 fs has a sane journal, other than mounting it or running a full fsck ? I may quite well be missing a few things here, but what I think I'd like is some option extra to e2fsck that says "if this is a journalled filesystem, and it was shut down uncleanly, just replay the journal and check for immediately

Hi, After our big ext3 file server crashes, I notice the fsck spends some time replaying the journals (about 5-10 mins for all volumes on the server in question). I guess it must do this should you want to mount the volumes as ext2. My question--is it (theoretically) possible to tell fsck only to replay half-finished and to knock out incomplete transactions from the journals, leaving the kernel

hello everyone. i guess this has been asked before, but haven't found it in the faq. i have the following issue... it is not uncommon nowadays to have desktops with filesystems in the order of 500gb/1tb. now, my kubuntu (but other distros do the same) forces a fsck on ext3 every so often, no matter what. in the past it wasn't a big issue. but with sizes increasing so much, users are