[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] Bug#568251: Bug#568251: Please support fsck on shutdown

[Goswin von Brederlow]

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh at debian.org> writes:

> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> recently we discussed the anoyance that is fsck during boot on irc and
>> came to the conclusion that on many systems the shutdown would be a
>> btter time to do this.
>
> As long as fsck on startup remains.  We need that to avoid further damage to
> corrupted filesystems.

Obviously.

>> Wouldn't it be nice if during shutdown it would run fsck whenever the
>> next boot would do so? That way the next morning you do not have to
>> wait for the fsck before starting to work.
>
> Well, we do NOT have a way to tell fsck to ignore check-after-n-umounts and
> check-after-n-days that some filesystems implement.  The only available fix
> I know of is to:
>
> 1) DISABLE these misfeatures in the filesystem so that fsck won't trigger on
> an otherwise clean filesystem during boot
>
> 2) re-implement the check-after-whatever-trigger through a script that calls
> fsck -f every once in a while
>
> and we certaily could call that script on shutdown, if the user wants us to.

The check for this is exactly the same as during boot.

> Just make triple-sure to coordinate with the UPS monitoring stuff, because
> if you trigger the fsck when the box is going down due to an UPS low battery
> shutdown, very bad things could happen.  The proper fix to that would be to
> add a new shutdown runlevel for the UPS stuff to use, I suppose.

Or laptop on battery. Same us boot there though.

>> Implementation wise I think it would be best if it continous the
>> shutdown if fsck fails and let the user handle that case by a repeated
>> fsck during the next boot.
>
> I think you could do it using fsck -fn.  But this is NOT going to work on
> every filesystem out there.  If you use fs-type-based whitelisting, it might
> be usable (after all, not all filesystems need this either... just those
> that have auto-check triggers when clean...)

Same as during boot except that on error it doesn't ask for a root passwd.

>> PS: It might even check / too after mounting it read-only again, right?
>
> Yes.

MfG
        Goswin