Prev: Request for comments re filesystem types ext4, XFS and reiser
Next: KAddressBook and KOrganizer migration to KDE4?
From: Paul J Gans on 15 Dec 2009 22:12
Rob <nomail(a)example.com> wrote:
>Vlad_Inhaler <andrew.williams(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>> I abandoned ReiserFS years ago when I hit a (SuSE) level which needed
>> around 20-30 seconds to mount each ReiserFS partition - and I had
>> around 6 of them, so I can't really check this but . . .

>Of course this time is dwarfed by the time it will take to run
>fsck.ext3 on your 6 disks formatted in ext3, when you boot the system
>and it decides that too much time has gone between checks.

Off the topic but still: the refresh time for file system checks
can be set manually. I'd set them to numbers that are relatively
prime to each other so that you'd never have two of them being
checked at the same boot.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
From: Rob on 16 Dec 2009 15:50
Paul J Gans <gansno(a)panix.com> wrote:
> Rob <nomail(a)example.com> wrote:
>>Vlad_Inhaler <andrew.williams(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>>> I abandoned ReiserFS years ago when I hit a (SuSE) level which needed
>>> around 20-30 seconds to mount each ReiserFS partition - and I had
>>> around 6 of them, so I can't really check this but . . .
>
>>Of course this time is dwarfed by the time it will take to run
>>fsck.ext3 on your 6 disks formatted in ext3, when you boot the system
>>and it decides that too much time has gone between checks.
>
> Off the topic but still: the refresh time for file system checks
> can be set manually. I'd set them to numbers that are relatively
> prime to each other so that you'd never have two of them being
> checked at the same boot.

My system is normally booted only once or twice a year. When it is,
I have to wait about two hours before all the fscks are finished.

Stupidly, it does not run them in parallel. I can understand why one
would serialize the checks of different partitions that are on the
same drive, but serializing the checks on the drives is ridiculous.
From: Van Chocstraw on 16 Dec 2009 17:13
JMR wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have once more tried to install from live cd on a primary partition
> from my first disk.
> Everything seemed to be ok but at restart i get the following messages :
>
> Filesystem is clean.
> fsck succeeded.Mounting root device read-write.
> Mounting root /dev/disk/by-label/SUSE-11.2
> mount -o rev -t reiserfs /dev/disk/by-label/SUSE-11.2/root
> mount : wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/sda4
> running code page or helper program
> could not mount root file system
> exiting to /bin/sh
> sh : cannot set terminal process group (-1) : inappropriate ioctl for
> device
> sh : no job control in this shell.
>
> Could it be a hardware problem ?
>
> I do not know what to do.
> All my installations (since 8.2) were always easy but this time i am
> rather stranded
>
> Thank you for your tips
>
> JMR

Start over, use ext4 file system.
From: Paul J Gans on 16 Dec 2009 18:04
Rob <nomail(a)example.com> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gansno(a)panix.com> wrote:
>> Rob <nomail(a)example.com> wrote:
>>>Vlad_Inhaler <andrew.williams(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>>>> I abandoned ReiserFS years ago when I hit a (SuSE) level which needed
>>>> around 20-30 seconds to mount each ReiserFS partition - and I had
>>>> around 6 of them, so I can't really check this but . . .
>>
>>>Of course this time is dwarfed by the time it will take to run
>>>fsck.ext3 on your 6 disks formatted in ext3, when you boot the system
>>>and it decides that too much time has gone between checks.
>>
>> Off the topic but still: the refresh time for file system checks
>> can be set manually. I'd set them to numbers that are relatively
>> prime to each other so that you'd never have two of them being
>> checked at the same boot.

>My system is normally booted only once or twice a year. When it is,
>I have to wait about two hours before all the fscks are finished.

>Stupidly, it does not run them in parallel. I can understand why one
>would serialize the checks of different partitions that are on the
>same drive, but serializing the checks on the drives is ridiculous.

I agree. I think that the entire strategy here needs to be
rethought. And I think that has been done to an extent in 11.2.
I've not used it enough to be sure.

I do wish that there was some documentation on all of this. Microsoft
refugees don't have to read it, but it would be good to have it around
for the other folks. Saying "read the code" isn't good enough.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
From: lurch on 16 Dec 2009 20:03
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:12:34 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gansno(a)panix.com>
wrote:

> I'd set them to numbers that are relatively
>prime to each other

'relatively'? 'prime to each other'?

Makes no sense. Zero, in fact. And it wouldn't work either.

Set it to some years long number and perform the disk checks manually
at YOUR chosen interval.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Request for comments re filesystem types ext4, XFS and reiser
Next: KAddressBook and KOrganizer migration to KDE4?