Is there is command line utility similar to chkdsk for Linux
Will it work for unmountable partitions?

-- 
Vista: the hd dvd player that thinks it's an operating system

On 5 Sep at 16:33 "jasee"  wrote in message


> Is there is command line utility similar to chkdsk for Linux Will it work
> for unmountable partitions?
>

man fsck

-- 
Tony van der Hoff       | mailto:news_0711@vanderhoff.org
Buckinghamshire, England

Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 5 Sep at 16:33 "jasee"  wrote in message
> 
>
>> Is there is command line utility similar to chkdsk for Linux Will it
>> work for unmountable partitions?
>>
>
> man fsck

Great thanks

jasee  wrote:
> Is there is command line utility similar to chkdsk for Linux
> Will it work for unmountable partitions?

What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?
Chris

"Chris Davies"  wrote in message 
news:m858p5xl33.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk...
> jasee  wrote:
>> Is there is command line utility similar to chkdsk for Linux
>> Will it work for unmountable partitions?
>
> What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?
> Chris

It got trampled on by parted!

"Chris Davies"  wrote in message 
> What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?

jasee  wrote:
> It got trampled on by parted! 

In that case I wonder whether there's even enough of it left for fsck to
make sense of.

Chris

Chris Davies wrote:
> "Chris Davies"  wrote in message 
>> What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?
> 
> jasee  wrote:
>> It got trampled on by parted! 
> 
> In that case I wonder whether there's even enough of it left for fsck to
> make sense of.

Very unlikely, i'd say. Forensic software would probably be more useful 
- to salvage as much data as possible. Depending on what happened, it 
could be possible to restore the whole thing by rewriting the partition 
table back to what it was before, though...




-- 
http://SnapAndScribble.com

Chris Davies wrote:
> "Chris Davies"  wrote in message
>> What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?
>
> jasee  wrote:
>> It got trampled on by parted!
>
> In that case I wonder whether there's even enough of it left for fsck
> to make sense of.

Probably not, parted checked a 7gig partition for eight hours. I know it 
warns it is slow, but this seemed too long.
I then tried a later version of parted and I gave up on that after running 
it overnight.
_then_ I couldn't mount it.
I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to relocate 
clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one. Resting a tube of 
toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got bored and did a reinstall.

Will Kemp wrote:
> Chris Davies wrote:
>> "Chris Davies"  wrote in message
>>> What happened to the partition to make it unmountable?
>>
>> jasee  wrote:
>>> It got trampled on by parted!
>>
>> In that case I wonder whether there's even enough of it left for
>> fsck to make sense of.
>
> Very unlikely, i'd say. Forensic software would probably be more
> useful - to salvage as much data as possible. Depending on what
> happened, it could be possible to restore the whole thing by
> rewriting the partition table back to what it was before, though...

Don't think the partition table was at fault actually.

On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:

> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to relocate 
> clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one. Resting a tube of 
> toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got bored and did a reinstall. 
> 
> 
That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
	yes | some_command
Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.

Raphael Mankin wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:
>
>> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to
>> relocate clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one.
>> Resting a tube of toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got
>> bored and did a reinstall.
>>
>>
> That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
> yes | some_command
> Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.

Useful, thanks.

In article ,
Raphael Mankin   wrote:
>
>On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:
>
>> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to relocate 
>> clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one. Resting a tube of 
>> toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got bored and did a reinstall. 
>> 
>> 
>That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
>	yes | some_command
>Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.

Or, alternatively, "fsck -y".

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky,
Tongue-tied & twisted, Just an earth-bound misfit, I...

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> In article ,
> Raphael Mankin   wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:
>>
>>> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to
>>> relocate clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one.
>>> Resting a tube of toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got
>>> bored and did a reinstall.
>>>
>>>
>> That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
>> yes | some_command
>> Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.
>
> Or, alternatively, "fsck -y".

This sounds like an option for the particular command (so it may or may not 
be present)?
Wheras yes | some-command seems like a seperate command itself which will 
therefore 'answer yes' to any following command which requires single or 
multiple yeses?
So the later is more useful ISTM.

jasee  wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Raphael Mankin   wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:
>>>
>>>> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to
>>>> relocate clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one.
>>>> Resting a tube of toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got
>>>> bored and did a reinstall.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
>>> yes | some_command
>>> Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.
>>
>> Or, alternatively, "fsck -y".
> 
> This sounds like an option for the particular command (so it may or may not 
> be present)?
> Wheras yes | some-command seems like a seperate command itself which will 
> therefore 'answer yes' to any following command which requires single or 
> multiple yeses?
> So the later is more useful ISTM. 

But if the command HAS a -y, which fsck does, there's no need to call on
another program to do its job for it.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

jasee  wrote:
> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to relocate 
> clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one. Resting a tube of 
> toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got bored and did a reinstall. 

That's why you should man fsck.
You can adjust its behaviour.
fsck -y for example, automatically answers yes to all those confirmation
questions you held the enter key down for.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co,uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |

Andrew Halliwell wrote:
> jasee  wrote:
>> Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Raphael Mankin   wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 20:43 +0100, jasee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I did try fsck but it wouldn't do it automatically, it wanted to
>>>>> relocate clusters (it seemed) and required me to ok each one.
>>>>> Resting a tube of toothpaste on the enter key worked. But I got
>>>>> bored and did a reinstall.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That is what the 'yes' command is for. You just do
>>>> yes | some_command
>>>> Where 'some_command' requires you to keep entering 'y'.
>>>
>>> Or, alternatively, "fsck -y".
>>
>> This sounds like an option for the particular command (so it may or
>> may not be present)?
>> Wheras yes | some-command seems like a seperate command itself which
>> will therefore 'answer yes' to any following command which requires
>> single or multiple yeses?
>> So the later is more useful ISTM.
>
> But if the command HAS a -y, which fsck does, there's no need to call
> on another program to do its job for it.

Agreed, however from what I remember it was an additional option to fsck 
which I had to choose in order for it to do its work and after I had chosen 
it there was no option to enter -y automatically.