From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 27 20:39:54 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.enteract.com (mail.enteract.com [207.229.143.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC2314F32 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:39:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Received: from shell-2.enteract.com (dscheidt@shell-2.enteract.com [207.229.143.41]) by mail.enteract.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA85270; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:39:42 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dscheidt@enteract.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 22:39:42 -0500 (CDT) From: David Scheidt To: "Daniel O'Connor" Cc: Remy Nonnenmacher , hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Running unattended (ifo FFS thread) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 28 Oct 1999, Daniel O'Connor wrote: > > 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.. It isn't really clear what else you would do, though. Most people don't know enough to fix things that fsck can't. If it hoses the box, restore from backup. It is what they are for! David scheidt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message