SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Debian user has recently discovered that systemd prevents the skipping of fsck while booting:
With init, skipping a scheduled fsck during boot was easy, you just pressed Ctrl+c, it was obvious! Today I was late for an online conference. I got home, turned on my computer, and systemd decided it was time to run fsck on my 1TB hard drive. Ok, I just skip it, right? Well, Ctrl+c does not work, ESC does not work, nothing seems to work. I Googled for an answer on my phone but nothing. So, is there a mysterious set of commands they came up with to skip an fsck or is it yet another flaw?
One user chimed in with a hack to work around the flaw, but it involved specifying an argument on the kernel command line. Another user described this so-called "fix" as being "Pretty damn inconvenient and un-discoverable", while yet another pointed out that the "fix" merely prevents "systemd from running fsck in the first place", and it "does not let you cancel a systemd-initiated boot-time fsck which is already in progress."
Further investigation showed that this is a known bug with systemd that was first reported in mid-2011, and remains unfixed as of late December 2014. At least one other user has also fallen victim to this bug.
How could a severe bug of this nature even happen in the first place? How can it remain unfixed over three years after it was first reported?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21 2014, @02:49AM
If you want ZFS, why the fuck would you use Linux, where it's a royal pain in the ass to use?
Just use FreeBSD. You get ZFS, out of the box. You get the best of the Linux experience, but without all of the idiocy of the past few years. And best of all, it's free! Not only does it cost nothing, but it tends to include software that's released under truly free licenses like the BSD and MIT licenses, and not encumbered licenses like those in the GPL family.
Fuck, you're even better off using Solaris if you really want ZFS that badly.
(Score: 2) by subs on Sunday December 21 2014, @02:55AM
Because poster uses Linux and using ZFS nowadays on Linux is about as difficult as installing a few packages.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21 2014, @03:06AM
Do the installers of any of the major distros' installers have support for ZFS? Do they make it just as easy to use ZFS for root as it is to use EXT4 or JFS or XFS or even ResierFS for root? If I have to "install a few packages" to use it, doesn't that mean that I need to use some other filesystem for root, and then go through the hassle of installing these packages and then setting up a separate ZFS partition somewhere?
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Sunday December 21 2014, @03:03AM
I've been using ZFSonLinux for 2 years with a variety of Debian servers. With the right controller (I use very affordable LSI controllers), it's very stable and performs well.
I considered BSD but there's no BSD that supports ZFS and Xen Dom0. Debian handles this well.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Sunday December 21 2014, @10:17AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21 2014, @03:05AM
Because Linux is more stable on any random box than FreeBSD. kmem map too small? All three boxes. Linux runs flawlessly on them though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21 2014, @03:09AM
How the fuck can you say that "Linux is more stable" than FreeBSD when this submission shows that a goddamn boot-time fsck run will prevent the Linux system from booting until the fsck is done, with no safe way to cancel it?!
FreeBSD doesn't screw around, and so they don't use systemd, and so it can't suffer from this problem.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday December 21 2014, @07:07AM
Maybe you want to learn what "stable" means. And more importantly, what it does not mean.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 21 2014, @02:34PM
Piss off, maxwell demon.