I'm not sure.. since I have not yet had any ipfire fs inconsistencies. But if a user presses that button, on a headless system (like an ipfire appliance). How will he know if there where errors on the filesystem ?(except when the errors are so severe that the system won't boot any further) I assume it will be in the system logfiles.. But then currently we are (trying to) accommodate users that don't seem to understand "Reboot & check filesystem" as "run fsck during startup". Hence, if they press that button, they will probably assume to get some filesystem check report after it is done ? Or at least some alert somewhere if there where errors detected ?
Considering this, I'm leaning towards the idea to just remove that button :-).. Or maybe the fsck result could be emailed to the user, or trigger a visible alert on de webui.. ?
Robin
Michael Tremer schreef op ma 21-11-2022 om 11:29 [+0000]:
Oh, I overlooked this email.
It sums up very well how I see this :) Great write.
-Michael
On 19 Nov 2022, at 16:59, Adolf Belka adolf.belka@ipfire.org wrote:
On 19/11/2022 16:20, Tom Rymes wrote:
This does raise the question of how a user would repair filesystem errors if this option only checks for errors and does not present the option to repair any issues found.
Should the be an option to do that?
My view on that is that there should not be the option to repair.
Repair of a filesystem in some automated fashion without looking at the specific errors involved and deciding the best way to fix them is more likely to result in worse damage than to make things better.
If the filesystem involved is a journaling one and that doesn't fix things on a reboot then I believe some pretty severe corruption is likely to have occurred and the best thing is to re-install IPFire and do a restore and/or look at the smart data to see if the hard disk is on the way out rather than trying to fix the corrupted parts of the filesystem.
It might be a good idea to put the above info into the wiki page so that people have some guidance on the recommended approach if they end up with errors from the fsck.
Regards,
Adolf.
Tom
On Nov 19, 2022, at 7:47 AM, Leo-Andres Hofmann hofmann@leo-andres.de wrote:
Ok, this was probably a bad idea. So please ignore/remove this patch. Sorry for the noise.
Am 19.11.2022 um 12:53 schrieb Michael Tremer: I can second this.
Why is fsck more obvious then “file system check”?
It is a more technical term which does not provide any more detail in my opinion.
-Michael
> On 18 Nov 2022, at 18:02, Tom Rymes tom@rymes.net > wrote: I'm still confused by what a user might expect, OTHER than a fsck check?
On 11/18/2022 10:42 AM, Robin Roevens wrote: > Some users assume that "check filesystem" does more than > just > trigger a simple "fsck" run. This patch changes the > button label to avoid > confusion. - NL translation > Signed-off-by: Robin Roevens robin.roevens@disroot.org > --- > langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > diff --git a/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl b/langs/nl/cgi- > bin/nl.pl > index 4fd6955cc..ebac2754a 100644 > --- a/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl > +++ b/langs/nl/cgi-bin/nl.pl > @@ -1804,6 +1804,7 @@ > 'read list' => 'lijst met readonly hosts', > 'real address' => 'Echte adressen', > 'reboot' => 'Herstarten', > +'reboot fsck' => 'Herstart & start ‘fsck’', > 'reboot ask' => 'Herstarten?', > 'reboot question' => 'Extra vraag voor herstart en > afsluiten', > 'reboot schedule' => 'Inplannen IPFire herstarts',
-- Sent from my laptop