Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #175082

Re: forcefsck inconsistency

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Wed, 23 Nov 2016, David Wright wrote:

> As for the root filesystem, are you saying that it was not checked
> even when you did what I suggested? What does
> # tune2fs -l /dev/sda1 | grep 'st ch'
> show (assuming / is /dev/sda1)?
>

   hi David,
   I said "inconsistency, but I must add "behaviour impossible to understand":

   1/
      According the tune2fs output, the check on / was actually done.
      I naïvely looked at syslog to find the checked devices, and I could  not imagine
      that the fsck checks are reported in syslog for all partitions, but not for /...

   2/
      An other strange behaviour. For my /dev/sda3 ext4 partition, I get:
      in syslog
          Nov 26 07:53:37 pfr2 systemd[1]: Started File System Check on /dev/sda3.
      with ->>tune2fs -l /dev/sda3 | grep 'st ch'
          Last checked:             Wed Nov 23 11:35:43 2016

   3/
     for the /dev/sdg1 partition for which no check was done at boot, I tried
     manually, but that didn't work. I then decided to recreate it (it was just
     a backup):
        - delete all partitions on /dev/sdg
        - add a Linux partition
        - run mkfs.ext4
     After that, the "Maximum mount count" was -1. Is this normal?
     I then set it to 30, and the behaviour is half normal: the fsck check is not
     done at boot, but I can do it manually. I imagine that it's a specific feature of
     this Seagate model.

cheers,
-- 
Pierre Frenkiel

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 20:00 +0100
  Re: forcefsck inconsistency David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 20:50 +0100
    Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmx.com> - 2016-11-22 23:50 +0100
      Re: forcefsck inconsistency David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-23 20:10 +0100
        Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmx.com> - 2016-11-26 10:30 +0100
          Re: forcefsck inconsistency Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-11-28 14:20 +0100
            Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 14:30 +0100
            Re: forcefsck inconsistency Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2016-11-28 14:50 +0100
              Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:20 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2016-11-28 18:10 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmx.com> - 2016-11-28 20:00 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2016-11-29 00:20 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 08:50 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> - 2016-11-29 12:40 +0100
                Re: forcefsck inconsistency Pierre Frenkiel <pierre.frenkiel@gmx.com> - 2016-11-29 13:50 +0100

csiph-web