home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.aix
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!giskard.austin.ibm.com!matt
- From: matt@giskard.austin.ibm.com (Matthew S. Cronk)
- Subject: Re: cannot unmount /usr to run fsck
- Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id)
- Message-ID: <BzF2DB.23qL@austin.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:36:46 GMT
- References: <MONIOT.92Dec15173903@dsm.dsm.fordham.edu> <BzDJoz.qzw@austin.ibm.com> <1gq2a0INN9ts@life.ai.mit.edu>
- Organization: IBM AWSD Austin, TX
- Lines: 32
-
- In article <1gq2a0INN9ts@life.ai.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
- >
- >In article <BzDJoz.qzw@austin.ibm.com> accapadi@mathew.austin.ibm.com
- >(Matt Accapadi) writes:
- >>
- >> When you boot from the boot/maintenance diskettes and enter
- >> maintenance mode, enter "getrootfs hdisk0 sh" instead of "getrootfs
- >> hdisk0" where hdisk0 is the name of the boot disk. Then run "fsck
- >> /dev/hd2".
- >
- >Uh, no. `getrootfs' mounts /usr. You need to do `varyonvg -n rootvg'
- >instead.
- >
-
- Begging your pardon, Charles, but Matt is correct in his explanation of
- the "getrootfs" command when invoked with a disk name and the additional
- parameter, "sh". The "getrootfs" command treats arguments following the
- disk name as commands, and executes them before any filesystems are
- mounted. In this case, a shell is invoked before the filesystems are
- mounted, from which the user can run commands on the unmounted filesystems.
-
- The original post that started this thread was about executing "fsck"
- on the /usr filesystem. It should be noted that in 3.2.2, or 3.2.3,
- "fsck -fp" is run by the boot process on /, /usr, /var, and /tmp
- before they are mounted. Look at /sbin/rc.boot to verify your
- particular system. This means that "fsck -fp" is invoked for each
- filesystem whenever the machine boots from hard disk.
-
-
- Matt (a different Matt who is also quite famaliar with the boot process)
-
- disclaimer: IBM is not responsible for what I say here.
-