Linux – How dangerous is it to interrupt an fsck

fscklinux

How dangerous is it to interrupt an fsck?

Has anyone had any direct experience doing this?

Best Answer

I don't have any direct knowledge or evidence, but to me, it would just be plain EVIL to not handle SIGINT.

Hm. Actually, I can offer some assurance: strings /sbin/fsck | grep sig reports:

sigaction
Warning... %s for device %s exited with signal %d.

So I'll just take this as anectdotal evidence that the fsck developers are calling sigaction to handle the relevant signals.

Related Solutions

Ext3 fsck time versus partition size

According to a paper by Mathur et al. (p. 29), e2fsck time grows linearly with the amount of inodes on a filesystem after a certain point. If the graph is anything to go by, you're more effective with filesystems of up to 10 million inodes.

Switching to ext4 would help - under the condition that your filesystem is not loaded to the brim, where the performance gain (due to not checking inodes marked unused) has no discernable effect.

Linux Bash – How to Sort du -h Output by Size

As of GNU coreutils 7.5 released in August 2009, sort allows a -h parameter, which allows numeric suffixes of the kind produced by du -h:

du -hs * | sort -h

If you are using a sort that does not support -h, you can install GNU Coreutils. E.g. on an older Mac OS X:

brew install coreutils
du -hs * | gsort -h

From sort manual:

-h, --human-numeric-sort compare human readable numbers (e.g., 2K 1G)

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Ext3 fsck time versus partition size

Linux Bash – How to Sort du -h Output by Size

Related Topic