From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 26 23:03:01 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA09150 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:03:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailmule1.mindspring.com (mailmule1.mindspring.com [204.180.128.192]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA09145 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 1997 23:02:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from bogus.mindspring.com (borg.mindspring.com [204.180.128.14]) by mailmule1.mindspring.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id CAA15892; Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:02:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970227070248.0089c5f0@mindspring.com> X-Sender: kpneal@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 02:02:48 -0500 To: Thomas David Rivers From: "Kevin P. Neal" Subject: Re: More on bad dir panics Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 09:48 PM 2/25/97 -0500, Thomas David Rivers wrote: > o) Running fsck once isn't enough to restore a file system to > a semi-usuable state; if you fsck it once, try again, > you'll sometimes notice more corrections. Don't some fscks repeat the check (or parts of it) if they find errors? Because it's not terribly uncommon (in my experience) for one fsck to not correct all the errors on a disk (on some of the Unixes I've used -- I've never fsck'd a FreeBSD box). Would looping until a clean check be a bad idea? With some timeout value, to prevent from fscking eternally? Say, 5-10 times then die? Would this be a useful addition? -- XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing XCOMM mailto:kpneal@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/ XCOMM kpneal@eos.ncsu.edu " *** StarDOS makes great coffee! ***" XCOMM From a mid-80's advertisement in "Compute's GAZETTE", a C64/C128 mag