1

Is it normal, that fsck on an SSD takes a second or two? I am on Linux Mint 17.3 and I called

sudo touch /forcefsck

EDIT: ext4 filesystem

  • What filesystem are you using? It's possible that a journaling filesystem will immediately go "oh, the journal looks ok, I didn't lose any transactions, all is well" – Ulrich Schwarz Apr 7 '16 at 15:19
  • @UlrichSchwarz ext4 – LinuxSecurityFreak Apr 7 '16 at 15:20
  • Did you reboot after running that touch? You're aware that forces an fsck on the next boot, correct? – derobert Apr 7 '16 at 16:11
  • @derobert yes I did – LinuxSecurityFreak Apr 7 '16 at 16:11
  • @don_crissti if you're familiar with fsck times on SSDs, please post an answer—do not use comments to answer the question. – derobert Apr 7 '16 at 20:09
0

Actual answer is, that the command on Linux Mint does not work as proven in this answer, section:

These two options did NOT work: Adding the /forcefsck empty file with


Please refer to the mentioned answer for more information, for instance as to how to actually force a file system check.

-1

There are two kinds of fsck, "normal"

sudo fsck /dev/sdx

and "full"

sudo fsck -f /dev/sdx

Your computer runs a normal fsck at every boot, which is really fast. fsck -f obviously takes longer, but in newer filesystems (ext4) it's still quite fast. With SSD might as well double that, and your fsck -f shouldn't take long at all.

Warning: Never run those codes on a mounted disk. It can cause severe filesystem corruption.

  • 1
    Not really, ext4 only has one type of fsck. It just tracks internally if it is needed—without -f, it only does an fsck if it thinks one is needed. With -f, it does one regardless. Refer to man e2fsck. – derobert Apr 7 '16 at 16:10
  • I've found fsck -f -t takes longer than fsck -t consistently, but I guess that's just anecdotal – nebulon Apr 7 '16 at 19:55
  • that's probably because without -f it didn't actually run an fsck. Not entirely sure of the behavior of -t as I've never run fsck time trials... You can use tune2fs to set the fsck needed flag, BTW. – derobert Apr 7 '16 at 19:58
  • freaking ubuntu forums misled me. ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1680978 I wanted to edit the "f-ck" to fsck but apparently my time for that ran out. well I suppose that's good for everyone since that joke is old and tired. – nebulon Apr 7 '16 at 20:06
  • I can't believe 2 things: a) on kubuntu 16, man fsck DOES NOT have the -f option. Is it a hidden one??, WTF, how idiotic. Assume you have a half trusted device and you want to check it when you want, why can't linux allow you to do it. 2) Why this GREAT answer had -2 points is beyond me! – Angelos Pikoulas Oct 12 '18 at 22:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.