similar to: Does e2fsck.conf contain "broken_system_clock = 1" per default on CentOS7?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:21:00 +0100 (BST) John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Gabriele Pohl wrote: > > > on all of my CentOS7 VMs on different hypervisors > > the config file e2fsck.conf contains the line > > > > broken_system_clock = 1 > > > > Do you see similiar /default/ settings on > > your machines? Is

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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Gabriele Pohl wrote: > 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

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, Gabriele Pohl wrote: > thanks for the hint :) > > 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 trigger fsck. > > fyi and cheers, I believe e2fsk happens both pre root mount, and post.

Hi all, I have difficulties to understand the output of yum-plugin-security. I am on a X86_64 machine and when I query for security updates, yum lists i686 packages, that I don't have installed. -------------------- # yum check-update --security Loaded plugins: changelog, fastestmirror, security Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * base: centos.mirror.linuxwerk.com * epel:

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

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, Somehow I've managed to get e2fsck to seg fault.. The filesystem in question started acting very strangely (e.g. filenames changing from music to MuSiC etc) so I rebooted, and since when fsck has crashed every time it has been run. I'm not really sure what any of this means, so I didn't know what debugging output to include, but below is the output of e2fsck. (I would have

I found a thread that has almost the exact same symptoms as me, but didn't seem to come to a resolution: https://listman.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/2004-December/msg00018.html I have an LVM(2) array that I've just lvextend'd and want to resize2fs, but I can't get through the e2fsck. I get these errors when fsck-ing: Group 3125's inode table at 102400545 conflicts with

(There really doesn't seem to be a dedicated e2fsprogs list, so this was the next-best place I could find. I don't place much faith in the sourceforge forums..) The filesystem in question is a 480 gig ext3 partition, on a hardware RAID5 controller. It's approximately 90% full, with something like 115K files. Kernel 2.4.20-pre4, on a Duron 900. As I type this, e2fsck has used up

Hello, We have an IA64 cluster with 64K kernel page size and we use lustre 1.4.8.1 and e2fsprogs-1.39cfs8. We meet the following problem : 1. I Create a Lustre file system, then start this file system and mount it on a client node 2. On this client node, I copy 2 files in my /mnt/lustre 3. I umount Lustre file system on this client node then stop Lustre file system 4. I use then :

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

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,

I'm trying to run e2fsck on a ~6TB filesystem which is about 90% full. We're doing backup to disk to this filesystem, and have a number of hard links (link counts up to 90). strace shows: write(1, "Pass 2: Checking ", 17) = 17 write(1, "directory", 9) = 9 write(1, " structure\n", 11) = 11 mmap(NULL, 91574272,

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 recently rebooted one of my machines and was greeted with a message about one of my ext3 partitions having some errors. I dutifully started e2fsck on the partition, but after a few hours of some useful messages about fixing inodes, it then started printing out lists of ascending numbers which I'm not sure how to interpret. The first time I noticed this, these numbers were in the 4000000

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:41:52AM -0500, Leonard Basuino wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:52 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:37:55PM -0500, Leonard Basuino wrote: > > > > I get the following debug

Hi there, In my last request I have asked info about backuppc and other backup solutions. After some test I have choosen bacula. Many people said it's too complex and try to make it works is a challenge. I've tested backuppc and I don't like it for a stupid reason... I must install on centos external software, configure a web server with cgi with suid enabled (apache does not have

Hi Bodo and Ted, Thank you both for your responses; they confirm what I thought might be the case. Knowing that I can try to proceed with your suggestions. I do have some followup questions for you: On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 09:05:09PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > Unfortunately, there has been a huge number of bug fixes for ext4's > online resize since 2.6.32 and 1.42.11.

On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 07:43:12PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: > > That's clearly a spurious error, so I checked dmesg: > > [159891.225762] EXT4-fs (dm-0): get root inode failed > [159891.227436] EXT4-fs (dm-0): mount failed The "get root inode failed" is rather unfortunate. Try running "debugfs /dev/dm0" and then use the "stat /" command. You