Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:24:39 -0900 From: Mel <fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Andy Wodfer <wodfer@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Help! locate.code /tmp: filesystem full Message-ID: <200901221024.39978.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <20090115233706.0bccadbe.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <23ed14b80901141034l16ee0dedp9837e4f1162e253b@mail.gmail.com> <23ed14b80901151237v180b28e9i7cfea923b69aeda1@mail.gmail.com> <20090115233706.0bccadbe.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 15 January 2009 13:37:06 Polytropon wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:37:24 +0100, "Andy Wodfer" <wodfer@gmail.com> wrote:
Added context:
> > Here's the output of fsck (this was a new command to me):
> >
> > # fsck
> > ** /dev/ar0s1a (NO WRITE)
> > Should I run fsck -y? Is it safe to do so?
>
> At least, fsck will do its best to repair the defective file system.
> As you have seen from the messages, you will surely lose some files
> when their information gets cleared. If you use -y, fsck is allowed
> to do anything it considers neccessary doing.
fsck on a live filesystem (hint: NO WRITE) is a bad idea. Doing an fsck that
is supposed to repair stuff, always requires downtime, unless you use
background_fsck. However, many people discourage it's usage as it can leave
some errors unfixed.
In short: reboot in single user mode, then run fsck -y at the prompt.
Never ever run fsck -y on a live filesystem.
--
Mel
Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules
and never get to the software part.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200901221024.39978.fbsd.questions>