Encryption for 2.14
according to the fusermount man page:
-z lazy unmount (works even if resource is still busy)
i'm not exactly sure what that means
it does say somewhere that you can force an unmount, like this: umount-FULL -f $FS and that it always works ... except when it has been lazy unmounted first
so maybe for ntfs drives, you could do something like this at the end of the shutdown script:
fusermount -u $FS || umount-FULL -f $FS
or maybe:
fusermount -u $FS || fusermount -z $FS
i don't really know, i do know that at least one person was complaining that their ntfs home dir seemed to be not unmounting cleanly, and the pup_save file always had some orphan inodes ... i don't even have any ntfs partitions ... oh, and i was wrong when i wrote e2fsck -y -p ... those options are mutually exclusive
in any case, i think it's better if the drives are unmounted, whether a lazy unmount or a forced unmount, because it often leaves an incorrect inode count from deleted files that were not completely deleted, which causes error messages, which bothers people, even though it is not a serious error
i don't care whether you use ext3 or ext2 ... i think i prefer ext3, i just think it is probably not necessary to force a full file system check on every boot ... an encrypted file system is probably easier to damage if the file system is not unmounted cleanly, but if it is unmounted cleanly, e2fsck should know and it should be ok to skip the full check ... and this is all done automatically with the one e2fsck command
-z lazy unmount (works even if resource is still busy)
i'm not exactly sure what that means
it does say somewhere that you can force an unmount, like this: umount-FULL -f $FS and that it always works ... except when it has been lazy unmounted first
so maybe for ntfs drives, you could do something like this at the end of the shutdown script:
fusermount -u $FS || umount-FULL -f $FS
or maybe:
fusermount -u $FS || fusermount -z $FS
i don't really know, i do know that at least one person was complaining that their ntfs home dir seemed to be not unmounting cleanly, and the pup_save file always had some orphan inodes ... i don't even have any ntfs partitions ... oh, and i was wrong when i wrote e2fsck -y -p ... those options are mutually exclusive
in any case, i think it's better if the drives are unmounted, whether a lazy unmount or a forced unmount, because it often leaves an incorrect inode count from deleted files that were not completely deleted, which causes error messages, which bothers people, even though it is not a serious error
i don't care whether you use ext3 or ext2 ... i think i prefer ext3, i just think it is probably not necessary to force a full file system check on every boot ... an encrypted file system is probably easier to damage if the file system is not unmounted cleanly, but if it is unmounted cleanly, e2fsck should know and it should be ok to skip the full check ... and this is all done automatically with the one e2fsck command
hello, i think this person was me. The ntfs home dir is in the union-fs... so remounting ro would be probabely the best thing.GuestToo wrote:[...] that at least one person was complaining that their ntfs home dir seemed to be not unmounting cleanly, and the pup_save file always had some orphan inodes ...
Isn't it possible to remove branches from the union and then unmounting them ? (I think Nathan F is already testing aufs, very interesting!)
i want to mention that Puppy is my working system for a year now and it runs at least 14h a day. So - relyability is one of the things i have an eye on.
- fudgy
This is the tread where I dug out the information earlier:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 53&t=13508
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 53&t=13508