| Linux - Server This forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context. |
| Notices |
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Are you new to LinuxQuestions.org? Visit the following links:
Site Howto |
Site FAQ |
Sitemap |
Register Now
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
 |
GNU/Linux Basic Guide
This 255-page guide will provide you with the keys to understand the philosophy of free software, teach you how to use and handle it, and give you the tools required to move easily in the world of GNU/Linux. Many users and administrators will be taking their first steps with this GNU/Linux Basic guide and it will show you how to approach and solve the problems you encounter.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free. |
|
 |
01-27-2008, 08:48 AM
|
#1
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Rep:
|
Cancelling forced fsck??
I had to reboot a server this morning that had been up for 430+ days. On reboot it started a forced filesystem check. The problem is that one of the filesystems is a 300gig LUN from the SAN. Is there anyway to cancel out of the filesystem check once it's started without risking any data loss?
|
|
|
|
01-27-2008, 11:58 AM
|
#2
|
|
Member
Registered: Aug 2007
Distribution: RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 64
Rep:
|
Why was it up for 430 days? Never updated the kernel, eh? Security not a concern of yours? Might want to reconsider that, but as to your question:
As to cancelling it once started, I wouldn't do that. Not sure how, either.
But you can change how often it happens: man tune2fs
|
|
|
|
01-28-2008, 08:56 AM
|
#3
|
|
Member
Registered: Jan 2008
Posts: 66
Original Poster
Rep:
|
thanks. I ended up just ctrl-c'ing out of it.
I would love to be able to have routine updates to all my servers, but certain customers demand virtually 100% uptime. So long as the box is stable, they will not approve a reboot or upgrade. :/
|
|
|
|
01-28-2008, 09:16 AM
|
#4
|
|
Moderator
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: San Jose, CA
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 8,505
Rep: 
|
Also, there are VERY few remotely-exploitable kernel vulns, so you usually just patch software and still be safe. Upgrading a kernel on a production system without a particular reason is a bad idea.
That being said -- fsck can be useful to avoid more severe corruption down the road. 300G is really not that bad for fsck on a modern system, particularly on journaled filesystems where it can skip some of the normal steps.
|
|
|
|
01-28-2008, 09:44 AM
|
#5
|
|
Guru
Registered: Jan 2001
Posts: 24,128
Rep: 
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebouv
Why was it up for 430 days? Never updated the kernel, eh? Security not a concern of yours? Might want to reconsider that, but as to your question:
|
I've seen systems up for longer periods of time. Not everyone needs to update their kernel on a daily basis or every release, that would be a sysadmin's nightmare if that were a requirement. If it's not an exploitable kernel vulnerablity and they don't need to recompile for hardware changes as that might change once every 5 years in some production environments, there's really no need to update the kernel. This could be a setup behind on a private network for all we know. I still run 2.4.32 on my own servers, with no need to update still even. But from my experience as a system administrator, only upgrade if it will directly impact you, other than that, a production system should never be updated on a daily type basis or when a new release is out without testing first. Also in my experience, usually the latest and greatest has more unknown vulnerabilities than the older proven stable releases where they've worked out all the known bugs, etc.
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.
|
|
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
|
Latest Threads
LQ News
|
|