Re: FSTRIM Service Failing at Boot Time

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/31/18 2:05 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> On 30/10/18 8:45 am, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 10/30/18 4:46 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>> On 29/10/18 9:15 am, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/18 5:23 AM, Stephen Morris wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>       I've just noticed that at boot time that the FSTRIM service
>>>>> is registering a
>>>>> failure. The failure seems to be because it is trying to trim two
>>>>> windows mount points
>>>>> which are on the SSD, that are mounted as RO because I can't mount
>>>>> them as RW due to
>>>>> Microsoft functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>>       Is there any way to configure the FSTRIM service to not
>>>>> attempt to trim specific
>>>>> partitions?
>>>> Yes.  But it may be more trouble than it is worth.  I assume the
>>>> only thing you're seeing
>>>> is a message in the logs.
>>> I noticed the message at boot time when I was monitoring the progress
>>> of the boot. The
>>> message that scrolled by said that the fstrim service had failed. It
>>> was 'systemctl
>>> status fstrim.service' that provided the details. I don't have the
>>> exact message as I
>>> didn't write it down but the same issue didn't occur this morning
>>> presumably because the
>>> trim service figured the was nothing to do. This morning when I
>>> issued the systemctl
>>> command it just said the service was 'inactive (dead)'.
>> It will show "inactive" since it is a "one shot" process.  Also, it
>> will only run once/week.
>>
>>> I have 4 partitions on the ssd, the windows system partition, the
>>> windows drive c
>>> partition, the Ubuntu boot partition and the Fedora boot partition.
>>> The systemctl
>>> command I issued yesterday to get the failure details indicated that
>>> the Fstrim Service
>>> was trying to do its work on those 4 partitions via the mount points
>>> specified in fstab,
>>> and, that the process on the two linux partitions was successful, but
>>> the process on the
>>> two windows partitions both failed.
>>>
>>> In fstab the two windows partitions are specified as 'Read Only'
>>> because of Microsoft
>>> functionality, so in my view, it is a defect in the Fstrim.service
>>> processing to even
>>> attempt any write processes on a mount point that is 'Read Only'. I
>>> can understand the
>>> functionality of "--all", but in my view a bit of common sense logic
>>> needs to be
>>> included with that to bypass any partitions that are 'Read Only' via
>>> the methodology
>>> that is being indicated it is using.
>> Well, the process probably doesn't check the fstab.  According to the
>> man page ...
>>
>> Errors from filesystems that do not support the discard operation are
>> silently ignored.
>>
>> Is all that is checked/ignored.
>>
>> If the messages bother you, you can bugzilla it.  But it seems quite
>> minor.
> 
> You are correct, it is minor, but I just don't see why,  when the fstrim
> process tries to trim the 4 mount points specified in fstab for the 4
> partitions on the SSD, and 2 are successful and two fail, potentially
> because those mount points are RO and Microsoft antics won't allow them
> to be RW, that should mean that the fstrim service has failed. I can
> understand the service being flagged a failing for all processes failed,
> but if some work then I would have expected a warning that a subset of
> what it was doing didn't work. That's the way I write my programs when I
> consider them to be written properly.

Generally speaking, programs exit with a "return code" or "exit status".
By convention, if the return code is zero, then the program has run
properly. A non-zero return code indicates a failure of some kind.

Now, there is no rule as to what _kind_ of failure a non-zero return
code means.

The man page for fstrim(8) specifically says:

	0	success
	1	failure
	32	all failed
	64	some filesystem discards have succeeded, some failed

So in your case, it's probably returning 64. AFAIK, systemd considers
ANY non-zero return code as a failure.

If it truly bothers you, ask the systemd folk to provide a means to
exclude certain return codes from "fail" status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital    ricks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -
- AIM/Skype: therps2        ICQ: 226437340           Yahoo: origrps2 -
-                                                                    -
-              Never eat anything larger than your head              -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux