Home_greyopenFATE - openSUSE feature tracking > #305099
Dashboard | Search | Sign up | Login

Please login or register to be able to edit or vote this feature.

please have yast do a fsck before attempting to mount existing filesystems

Feature state

openSUSE-11.2
Rejected Information
openSUSE-11.3
Rejected Information

Description

I was doing a new install, but wanted to keep my /home filesystem (JFS). No problem, except that the filesystem wasn't clean and needed an fsck. As far as I can tell, yast didn't do this, so mounting of the /home filesystem failed, which caused the entirely installation process to abend and start over.

Relations

Discussion


icons/user_comment.png S. H. wrote: (10 years ago)

I'd really hate to have my 100+ GB ext3 partitions fscked. That takes forever.

icons/user_comment.png P. J. wrote: (10 years ago)

Even when they're clean? It's done on every bootup anyway. See /etc/init.d/boot.localfs

icons/user_comment.png J. U. wrote: (10 years ago)

What is your opinion Thomas?

icons/user_comment.png T. F. wrote: (10 years ago)

That would need an feature request, not a bug report.

icons/user_comment.png S. K. wrote: (10 years ago)

I think it's not too uncommon that people reinstall their system _because_ the old one had a problem, so dirty file systems may not be too uncommon.

icons/user_comment.png T. F. wrote: (10 years ago)

What the customer described happens on JFS, this is an unsupported filesystem
exactly for the reason that it behaves quite fundamentally different to most
other filesystems.

Filesystems like ext3 or reiser simply do their log reply when they are dirty
and all is fine. So if you want such things to be added, please specify it
as a feature request. Since there needs to be an interactive user interface
to the filesystem check program this is in no way a simple change. Or would
you prefer for example do a rebuild of reiserfs internal tree as default
without asking the user first? Problem is that the questions the filesystem
check tools ask the user are quite special and of course totally different
for different filesystem types.

icons/user_comment.png R. D. wrote: (9 years ago)

JFS fsck.jfs -p seems to make sense. ext2 fsck.ext2 suports that to.
Validating filesystems that are not to be formatted, is a reasonable thing to do (it happens on boot after all) so is not against user expectations. You just booted to do the installation after all.
As for "non trivial" UI, why is aborting earlier only when recovery is impossible, worse than failing with zero effort on the mount?

icons/user_comment.png D. M. wrote: (9 years ago)

I happen to suffer from this bug too once. I think the bug is not that the installation cleans the disk, but at least say that is not clean instead of crashing (in my case it was an installation where yast thought the disk was mounted but it was not)

icons/user_comment.png A. S. wrote: (9 years ago)

No time for 11.1.

icons/user_comment.png J. E. wrote: (8 years ago)

Not mounting is one thing, but cancelling the installation is unacceptable.

icons/user_comment.png R. D. wrote: (8 years ago)

You get aborted installation similarly if an invalid mount parameter is entered.

Can't trial existing mounts be tried after partition info is entered (with fsck -p possibility if the mount fails in such a way to make fsck recommended).  Then the installer can be guided back to adjust partition info & options, rather than have it fail much later when beginning the installation.

A check box for "Perform Consistency Check" could be set, with suggestion to use the "Do not mount at boot" option to repair it later, if fsck-ing is unwanted.

Last change: 2 years ago
Voting
Score: -5
  • Negative: 8
  • Neutral: 0
  • Positive: 3
Tags
Feature Export
Application-xmlXML   Text-x-logPlaintext   PrinterPrint