From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Le5qu-000167-Aa for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:58:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 052C7E0205; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mail.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.10]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D297E0205 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:58:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 624EBDEF79 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:58:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org ([192.168.54.25]) by localhost (smtp-filter.ukfsn.org [192.168.54.205]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25xnF8x9yJxO for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:55:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from wstn.ethnet (unknown [78.32.181.186]) by mail.ukfsn.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36A04DEF78 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:58:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Peter Humphrey Organization: at home To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] A little light relief from endless problems Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:52:54 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200903011147.09719.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <20090302070931.GA17633@cubotto.ath.cx> In-Reply-To: <20090302070931.GA17633@cubotto.ath.cx> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903021052.55055.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> X-Archives-Salt: 41bdaa1f-7f90-4ca4-86f2-076174fe679a X-Archives-Hash: ce03a03bbab50b0fba0b7a9f1f3bdad2 On Monday 02 March 2009 07:09:31 Momesso Andrea wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 02:03:28PM -0500, Allan Gottlieb wrote: > > At Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:49:36 +0100 KH wrote: > > > Peter Humphrey schrieb: > > >> As it's Sunday, here's an odd little thing. > > >> > > >> Not long ago, while booting this machine, four ext3 partitions > > >> needed checks on remount count reaching zero. They had been set to > > >> 23, 24, 25 and 26 mounts. (I didn't choose the numbers; they were > > >> allocated at the time I was creating the file system.) > > >> > > >> Now, this box does get rebooted, but hardly 23 x 24 x 25 x 26 = > > >> 358,800 times all told. At, say, two reboots per day, that would > > >> take rather a long time: a little under 500 years if my arithmetic > > >> is working. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > this is incorrect. 179400 mounts would be enough (24 and 26 can both > > > be divided by 2). I wasn't sure how to allow for this common factor, so I ignored it. Thanks for the clarification. And no, 250 years is not a lot more credible than 500! So you might say my error was not significant. > > Correct. I erred in saying that 23,24,25,26 are relatively prime as > > you noted. In general if it was a1,a2,...an the answer would be > > LCM(a1,a2,...,an), where LCM abbreviates Least Common Multiple. > > > > allan Nicely put. > What about battery? If that's a laptop checks are deferred if running on > battery at boot time, so it can happen that all the partitions are > fscked the first time you boot on AC. It isn't a laptop. It's an ordinary desktop box (or a workstation, depending on your point of view: it was sold as a workstation - and it certainly makes enough noise for one). And the other contribution, about manual mounting, is also a red herring. If anyone thinks I contributed a hundred thousand operations to the total, they need to spend a little time in a quiet room :-) -- Rgds Peter