On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 10:57 -0500, Robert Locke wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 01:29 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:57, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > > >paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Paul Howarth) writes: > > >> > are you guys gonna keep batting this around? > > >> > man fstab > > >> > see explanation on 6th field > > >> > > >> What has that got to do with forcing a filesystem check? > > > > > >Nothing but that wasn't the original question. > > > > > >> Gene doesn't want to disable the filesystem check, he just wants > > >> it to be more verbose so it's clear that the system hasn't hung. > > > > > >Quote: > > >"Filesystems within a drive will be checked sequentially, but > > > filesystems on different drives will be checked at the same > > > time to utilize parallelism available in the hardware." > > > > > >Meaning that (using Gene's config with hda and hdd), if you happen > > > to have hdaX and hddY and that fsck starts to check them at the > > > same time (or hdaX first), you won't see progress for hddY. > > > > I'm not seeing any progress for /dev/hdd3, ever. Having another > > running at the same time on a different spindle has nothing to do > > with the problem I'm reporting. > > > <snip> > Actually, Gene, that's exactly the point. Only one of the perhaps many > parallel running fsck's is displaying it's output on your console. In > your case, with two spindles, you will have the partitions on the > "second drive" effectively being checked in the background because the > partitions on the "first drive" are taking console ownership if you > will. So while hda1 and hdd1 are both being checked, you would see only > hda1, and then when hdd2 starts, well, hda2 already has the console, and > so on.... > > One option to prevent the parallelism, and cause your system to take > even more time to boot, might be to adjust the final column > in /etc/fstab. If you change the 2's on the hdd partitions to 3's, > then, if memory serves, hdd would be checked in a 3rd pass, after pass 2 > has finished hda, and you should then see the output from checking hdd > since we are not then running in parallel, but rather sequentially. ---- Of course - I suggested that yesterday morning... > are you guys gonna keep batting this around? > > man fstab > > see explanation on 6th field And Paul suggested that I was missing the mark instead they have continued to bat it around Craig
