| 1 |
· Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs.ext@×××.com>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 schrieb ext Michael Schmarck: |
| 4 |
>> Dirk Heinrichs <dirk.heinrichs.ext@×××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Am Mittwoch, 2. April 2008 schrieb ext Michael Schmarck: |
| 6 |
>> >> You're not shutting down the system in a clean way. |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > You're not? I thought that's the purpose of the whole thing? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It's more like pulling the plug, isn't it? At least none of |
| 11 |
>> the shutdown scripts is run. And if you don't run ALT + SysRq + U, |
| 12 |
>> or if it just doesn't work (like hangs at some (remote) fs), |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> But nobody proposed _not_ to run ALT + SysRq + U, |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
True, but if things come to worse, you've got to do a ALT+SysRq+B |
| 17 |
or +O, even before +U completely returned. As said, it can happen, |
| 18 |
that U(nmount) doesn't work - and then you'd need to shutdown |
| 19 |
anyway. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Neil even proposed ALT + |
| 22 |
> SysRq + EISUB, to be sure everything is killed, sync'd and unmounted. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Which might or might not work. But note that I was also talking |
| 25 |
about applications being in a corrupted state (the database example). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>> filesystems aren't even unmounted and thus dirty and thus need |
| 28 |
>> a fsck run on next boot. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> XFS to the rescue :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Yep. Well, to be honest, I haven't had a fs die on me, because |
| 33 |
of a Alt+SysRq+B. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Michael Schmarck |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Inspiration without perspiration is usually sterile. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives