On Thu, 2025-03-20 at 08:36 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: > *From:* Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallag...@gmail.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 20:31 UTC+11 > > *To:* users@lists.fedoraproject.org > > *Subject:* RE: Strange Systemd Messages > > > > On Wed, 2025-03-19 at 07:57 +0100, Marco Moock wrote: > > > > That message is for an nfs network device while the same message at > > > > the bottom is for the cifs interface to the same device, but why is > > > > it saying that they are not a device when they were successfully > > > > mounted. Having said this though I was trying to use this as a > > > > safeguard against the device not "talking" causing, as it has done in > > > > the past, other mounts to not be done. > > > The message is a bit arbitrary, but checking a network file system from > > > the remote is not intended IIRC, so disable the file system check > > > option in fstab. Do the checks on the remote system. > > Although the message is not as clear as it might be, it's still a big > > no-no to try to run fsck on *any* mounted filesystem, local or remote. > > Given that remote implies mounted, that's enough reason for the error. > > From what I've been able to determine the remote system doesn't appear > to provide checking functionality, so adding checking options on to the > device entries in fstab was the only way I could see to prevent the > device being unavailable from terminating the fstab process at the mount > of that device as has happened numerous times in the past. I should not > have to put the mount of the device at the end of fstab for mounts that > are specified after it in fstab to be actioned.
There are mount options to prevent the process hanging when a remote server fails to respond quickly. See mount(8). > Just on the checking topic, what is the difference between checking a > device on your machine and a network device that is semi-local, ie: > attached to my local router. As far as I am concerned they are both the > same. The difference is that the remote is not a device, it's a filesystem. They are definitely not the same. fsck needs direct physical access to the hardware device, and that's not what NFS provides. NFS (and Samba) try to present remote filesystems as being equivalent to local ones and that usually works, but they have different failure modes, e.g. a local disk going offline unexpectedly is a serious error, but a remote filesystem not responding quickly may or may not be a problem. As the old saying goes, "You can't tell down from disconnected". poc -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
