/home has been mounted X times without being checked?
 

when first booting up my Debian, i noticed a few lines that said something similar to this:

/home has been mounted 30 times without being checked
/var has been mounted 30 times without being checked
.
.
.

why is it doing it, and what exactly do those mean?

By default, Linux will check force it's filesystem and partitions. Use tune2fs if you don't want to autocheck and run a filesystem checker against your filesystems/partitions.

I believe this is a self-check the system does after every so-many reboots. The system is setup to check the file system after 30 mount/remounts for file-system integrity.

I think it will ask you to run fsck and will report any problems.

I'm unaware of the way you can change that number or stop it from happening. Stopping won't be such a good idea any way.

Frankly, I haven't thought of this since I've been using Linux. I'm content that Linux takes care of file-system if there are any.

Tux,

Edit: The Kid got me but as usual he's spot on. :D

Is it a laptop /??
 

If it is a laptop, and you need to delay it, very simply, on startup, unplug your power supply... since you are starting on batteries it will not force you for the check again, but will delay it for the next boot... (in fact, that's what happens with me on my hp dv3000 pavilion/debian).

Presumably, this are ext2 partitions?

One of the arguments for journalling filesystems is to avoid these filesystem checks, as these can be quite irritatingly time consuming. Or not, depending on your usage profile and your ability to adopt a zen-like posture on data integrity.

Hi,
Look at the post date. 4 years old.

And the answer was already provided. 'tune2fs' will allow a user setup the count.

onebuck ...
at worst, someone is searching the site for answers and information about something like the original post, and finds more information and more suggestions than they would if no one else posted with additional information. Calm down.

Hi,
You are hunting or what? I wasn't anxious, so your tamper wasn't necessary.

It does no one justice to attempt to relate a current answer to a problem of yesteryear by resurrecting the post. The late poster (panv) reply isn't the proper fix. To imply that it was is wrong.

Now if 'panv' had something that would provide a fix that is relative instead of saying 'If it is a laptop' then providing a fix that is not relative to the OP equipment or posted information. Then of course resurrect it.

If we all just got into the old threads and start the 'if', 'but' or 'should have' then the forum would be so confusing or even just not serviceable to the community. Enough said by me on this as it will be my last to you.