From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 18:25:29 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from celery.dragondata.com (celery.dragondata.com [205.253.12.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CEA14E08 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 18:25:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from toasty@celery.dragondata.com) Received: (from toasty@localhost) by celery.dragondata.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA81599; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:25:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from toasty) From: Kevin Day Message-Id: <199910280125.UAA81599@celery.dragondata.com> Subject: Re: Running unattended (ifo FFS thread) To: doconnor@gsoft.com.au (Daniel O'Connor) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:25:06 -0500 (CDT) Cc: remy@synx.com (Remy Nonnenmacher), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Daniel O'Connor" at Oct 28, 1999 10:51:51 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL1] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > > On 27-Oct-99 Remy Nonnenmacher wrote: > > In followup of the FFS thread, I would like to know if there are some > > recommendations for running unattended machines. For exemple, avoiding > > the 'run fsck manually' (for exemple, when co-locating a machine far > > away where it is not possible to get a console login). > > Well.. (and I know lots of people would say this is stupid) If you are going to > run it in isolation, then you can change the inital fsck so that it just > assumes yes for all user input in an error condition.. > > This means that it generally always gets through the fsck.. Of course if fsck > had to delete files then they're gone, but if you value its ability to stay up > without human intervention its handy. > The problem is that 'fsck -py' ignores the 'p' and will fsck every time, even if it's unneeded. This takes ages for me. I believe I submitted a PR with a 'fix' to fsck. Kevin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message