Author Topic: fsck (Read 3331 times)

acrow · « **on:** May 09, 2009, 11:13:08 PM »

When my Mac was completely shot I could not get a good read from fsck. Now that Leopard is reinstalled I wonder how often, and for what cause, should I run fsck. I saw no real problems before everything went to the city park. Then all stopped working at various stages of running. I did not keep notes, I had no idea what I was seeing. No "root#" in fsck. That is fixed. What do I need to understand to keep a Mac up and running? What do I need to look for as a problem starts? I always ask easy questions.

I kind of enjoy the problems? ! It allows me to solve them. I am just not familiar enough with causation with the Intel Mac to figure out what is the problem and its cause. I was told, somewhere else, that it was my HDD. I gave that a grain of salt. I have been through HDD failures. I knew it was the OS and my screw ups. Thanks folks. Tony

gunug · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:24:39 PM »

I'm probably a bit overboard but I run it whenever things start to seem a little strange; well actually I run "Applejack" which is just a little script that runs "FSCK" and some other UNIX programs that fix Preferences and Permissions and things. You run an installer for it and then you can run it in just the same place in Single User Mode that you'd run just FSCK! I've been running it without any trouble on a number of machines running 10.4 and 10.5. Other people probably don't like Applejack but I think many of the complaints might be from running previous versions of it or things that were beyond what it could fix. Link:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/15667

acrow · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2009, 12:19:24 AM »

Lost Manual says you are a member of Mac, if you see what I mean. I agree. When I had no knowledge it all got screwed up. Now, I run it whenever I see a problem and all comes out well. When I did not run it the Disk Utility was a mess. Wouldn't open. Now it opens each time to repair permissions. I was told here that Leopard can be a problem. Obviously, it can be. For me, I am the problem and Leopard is a second problem. Thank goodness this isn't Microdol X. I wouldn't have a B/W negative otherwise!

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2009, 03:37:45 PM »

I beg to differ that Leopard is a "problem." That you were running Leopard when you ended up with problems does not make Leopard the cause or even, necessarily, a cause.

Just because I hit a tree when driving while listening to a particular radio station doesn't mean I can sue them for damages.

As for using "fsck," use it whenever you want, if you feel the need. Thousands, nay, millions of Mac users don't even know the utility exists. And there is no reason for them to know, they don't ever need it. Leopard is the latest version of an OS that is designed to make this kind of utility almost irrelevant. The built-in utilities are mostly GUI front ends to this unix command. Many third-party 'maintenance' apps use the very same commands, just with different front ends and different combinations of other utilities.

The point is, sometimes a 'normally' running machine may have processes running that are really causing the problem. Running DU with those broken processes still in operation may not solve anything. If one knew what those processes were, it would be obvious to stop them and then DU could do its thing without fail. By using fsck, you automatically have stopped any and all (OK, 99.99%), non Apple processes and the repair work can proceed as desired. Of course, that still doesn't mean the real problem has been corrected. That corrupt process may still start up during a regular startup. What we have been 'fixing' is not the problem but the symptom.

But this may be the first step in determining that there actually is another problem, in the first place.

So, as far as I'm concerned, as long as DU works fine, why bother with fsck? If DU has a problem fixing something, and I have know idea what else might be the problem, fsck can at least get the permissions fixed so I can proceed with further sleuthing.

There are exceptions to every rule of thumb, this is just one of mine.

Jumping is hazardous to your health! Your mom should have taught you that!

acrow · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2009, 08:46:26 PM »

My Mom never had a Mac. Nor, a Radio Shack 64k. She never had a clue that there would be Basic or Cobal. I am new to Mac and I fear have I been thinking of PC in terms of maintenance. My fault.

OK, that's fine. Can we be friends? I am not comfortable with your responses and the layers of the same sentences. That OK with you? I just need an answer, not a lecture. I say this as you are making me uncomfortable here. tony

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2009, 04:25:31 PM »

Oops! Didn't mean it to be a lecture, I just love to have the 'microphone!' You know the kind, give them a mic and an audience and they seem to want to talk for hours!

Perhaps I was implying more than I meant with my response, but also, remember responses may be written for more than the questioner, assuming "they" can read between the lines (doubtful as that seems to be...

). Anyway. I was just trying to explain my opinions about why I do things the way I do. And they are just opinions. You can use fsck to do the same thing DU does, but it's not necessary and requires a shutdown and restart, plus looking at a screen that will be completely foreign to the majority of Mac users. And that's intentional on Apple's part. We don't use TRS-80s anymore, well not much, anyway.

OS X is still not perfect (although you'd never know it the ay some fanbois talk...), but Apple is doing their best to create an OS that is as solid/stable as possible and fully usable by your grandmother!

At the same time. Practically all the unix CLI is available for those that can use it.

I do suggest that newcomers to the Mac take things slowly, especially if they have been long-time Windows users. There are things that the Mac does differently (or is that the other way around ). There are some things on each platform that are not needed on the other. Some differences are obvious, some are very subtle.

You have a big advantage in that you have no fear of Terminal/CLI!

Just don't forget what you learned, maybe quite a while ago, "Type slowly, you have a big stick!" Or something like that...

I certainly hope we can be friends, sometimes it's difficult to take too much of me, but I do my bestest to pick fights only with those who I know I can whip!

All the rest I just tease and make sure I can outrun them!

Don't hesitate to notify an Admin or two if you ever feel talked down to or even negatively. And if you feel you've been directly insulted, I wouldn't blame you for mentioning it on the board. No one deserves being treated that way, even a Windows user!

Especially one that is a great photographer, too!

acrow · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:04:37 PM »

OK, I was right, you are a nice guy. I fully intended to use fsck anyhow. I can always come to you again should I screw up!

I am all Mac for my photography and the post processing. I hope you all enjoy the few photos that I have posted here. My way of saying thanks for being here. Tony

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:15:27 PM »

You are extremely hard up for help, if you have to come to me!

I'm really just a 'parrot.' But I've been learning <a lot of helpful stuff at this site>. Especially for 'problems' I've had...

acrow · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:17:58 PM »

I'm just like a trout, I bit. Shame on me!!!!!!

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:19:13 PM »

You're welcome!

We've had so much rain around here, fishing is about all we can do!

Mayo · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2009, 05:20:36 PM »

Tony, I would tone down the sensitivity meter just a tad if I were you... Communicating via a Web forum and e-mail is imperfect at best. There is no immediate give-and-take so we cannot correct misunderstandings as soon as they occur. It's the nature of the medium when responding to a post to make some assumptions and try to cover all the bases at times... and sometimes the assumptions are incorrect. So It Goes...

As far as Leopard is concerned, I don't find it to be a problem OS at all. In fact, starting with Tiger (10.4) the Mac OS has been amazingly stable and trouble-free. I cannot recall a single problem that I have experienced that could be traced to the OS since I upgraded to OS X.

Pre-OS X? That's another subject... I had to spend significantly more time trouble-shooting OS 7-9. OS 9 was the best pre-OS X operating system but it still had its quirks. And like earlier Mac OS versions it was vulnerable to third-party extension conflicts. OS X (at least starting with 10.3...) is as good as it gets OS-wise. OS X really whacked Microsoft upside the head by showing how to get it right when it comes to designing a stable, easy-to-use operating system.

sandbox · « **Reply #11 on:** May 11, 2009, 07:04:35 PM »

Hey mayo,

FYI

I'm still running a PPC iBook on Panther with 126 applications, 67 utilities, OS 9, Windows XP pro, and Linux and it's stable. Sometimes I wish it would mess up so I could justify a new toy! Only one time in 4 years has this product given me a scare, where even Disk Warrior couldn't fix it. I inserted the TechTool pro CD and it brought it back to life. I follow Pendragon's Permission Prescription and eat an Apple a day.

QUOTE(Mayo @ May 11 2009, 06:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tony, I would tone down the sensitivity meter just a tad if I were you... Communicating via a Web forum and e-mail is imperfect at best. There is no immediate give-and-take so we cannot correct misunderstandings as soon as they occur. It's the nature of the medium when responding to a post to make some assumptions and try to cover all the bases at times... and sometimes the assumptions are incorrect. So It Goes...

As far as Leopard is concerned, I don't find it to be a problem OS at all. In fact, starting with Tiger (10.4) the Mac OS has been amazingly stable and trouble-free. I cannot recall a single problem that I have experienced that could be traced to the OS since I upgraded to OS X.

Pre-OS X? That's another subject... I had to spend significantly more time trouble-shooting OS 7-9. OS 9 was the best pre-OS X operating system but it still had its quirks. And like earlier Mac OS versions it was vulnerable to third-party extension conflicts. OS X (at least starting with 10.3...) is as good as it gets OS-wise. OS X really whacked Microsoft upside the head by showing how to get it right when it comes to designing a stable, easy-to-use operating system.

Mayo · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2009, 02:36:54 AM »

I should have written "In fact, starting with Panther (10.3) the Mac OS has been amazingly stable and trouble-free." 10.3 is when I decided to join the OS X crowd and I wouldn't mind using it one bit if I had a Mac that required it. Even if I had to permanently revert to 10.3 for some strange reason I wouldn't mind it much at all. While some features might be missing I would expect the core OS to be as reliable as either 10.4 or 10.5.

I think that Panther was the first OS X version that was worth paying for; IMO previous versions were "public betas" that should have been free. I kind of got my versions mixed-up; the myriad cat names confuse me at times...

acrow · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2009, 07:12:26 PM »

What about Linux? Who do you trust there as far as downloads. Being new to this and as old as I am now to the world I wonder. Before I bought the Mac I looked everywhere for the tenor of trusted substance as to Linux programs. I was amazed at the community and have, now, been warned about downloads here. It's always an issue of trust and knowledge. My knowledge is fairly weak. That's why I am here. Thanks

krissel · « **Reply #14 on:** May 14, 2009, 02:15:36 AM »

There are a couple people on TS who use Linux and they may drop by.

Here's a recent article discussing its future on the desktop.
There are several links within the article that will give you more information.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/des...820?source=fssr

FWIW, I've never had to use FSCK.

Oh, and did you ever notice how pronouncing those letters sounds a lot like physic?

Guess that's the intended result for your Mac if you do use it.

News:

Author Topic: fsck (Read 3331 times)