Ubuntu 9.04 with file issues Cross posted by intent- we're supposed to compare notes on such problems - I hope.

[Jeffrey Watts]

Perhaps there's a gem of good information hidden in here, but you've
shrouded it in so much dramatic language that I find myself lacking the will
to follow up on it.

Seriously Jack, cut out the hyperbole and dramatics.  You're sounding like
Chicken Little.  For most people who encounter filesystem corruption, fsck
-y is perfectly fine.  Yes, you're right, in certain circumstances it can
make things worse.  But then again, in those circumstances a sysadmin would
just restore from backup.  If there's no backup and the data is important
then I don't think a lay person needs to be messing with it at all - they
ought to pay the money to have a pro recover it.

Either way, speak more factually and less dramatically.

Jeffrey.

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 1:34 AM, Jack <quiet_celt at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I will continue to disagree with this option, until someone can prove to me
> that fsck -y is *always* safe to run on ext3 filesystems. When in fact it is
> known that it can cause further corruption of the filesystem. If the
> messages are the result of an improper shutdaown, it may be safe, but if the
> messages are the result of imminent disk failure fsck -y *usuallly* does
> more damage. Fsck -y is, and was, designed for use by system administrators
> who know what they are doing. It's not meant to be the lazy man's alternate
> to safe fs recovery. I'm sorry, I think the response "fsck -y" to a question
> about wanting to know more about how fsck and the fs work is bad advise at
> best, and a copout.
>
> Nowhere has the OP said this is the result of an improper shutdown, and he
> specifically wanted to know how he can find out why he is getting the
> messages and the safest way to fix it. Whether it was safe to have fsck
> clone the multiply linked files or not, and what the dangers were. To simply
> say "fsck -y" is an irresponsible response which gives the OP no clues as to
> what has happened and why.
>
> You said three organizations say it's safe, but provide no proof of that
> and name only two.  There are numerous people who disagree with you. The
> simple fact is fsck -y in this particular case *will* result in data loss.
> While it may be inevitable, it may also make it worse, depending on the
> cause. We also, don't know if there are still further errors.
>
> However, if my opinion is deemed to be paranoid, and the OP wishes to do
> the quick and , potentially, easy fix, I would suggest adding a -v to the
> command so you get a list of the "fixes" in the process., and if you have a
> alternate disk pipe it to a file as well as the screen. Just know that I am
> telling you, it can do more damage to the fs and make later recovery even
> worse. Although, apparently, Oracle disagrees with me, and they're ever so
> trustworthy and probably smarter than me.
>
> Also, make sure you never, ever run fsck -y on a mounted filesystem.
> Although, maybe, someone here will say that's totally safe too. Now we are
> also talking here specifically about exzt2/3 filesystems.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20100905/3c2cae78/attachment.htm>