Toshiba Satellite running KDE (Solved)

[Old-Polack]

Right...
Totally...
I'm even farther out of my depth than MeeMaw, so the question really is:
What on earth do I do now?
It doesn't give me the option to answer any question except whether to ignore the error in block 6651906, and ignoring an error just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I just want it fixeded and haven't the foggiest how one fixeses this problem (hence the phone call to MeeMaw).

I assume that what y'all are trying to say is that I need to give the 'puter a command to "fix yourself, idget!"  Which command would that be?  Or am I here too soon and you haven't quite decided among yourselves?

We did try "fsck /media/sda1" and it found that block error.  I thought maybe "fsck -l /media/sda1" so it could list my bad blocks and I could maybe-might-possibly find out how extensive the damage is (if it's a big ol' chunk of my computer, I can just assume the gods have deemed it poor judgement on my part to have internet installed in my home and turn the ethernet off, thus saving myself the cash and paying penance in the form of computerlessness until such time as i can afford a replacement - one never questions the gods.)

Or, if y'all would prefer, I can put try "fsck -p /media/sda1" to make it try to fix itself without asking me anything it doesn't absolutely have to. Or "fsck -y /media/sda1" so it'll ignore that error I'm afraid to and go on with its bad self.  That's kind of what I've got it narrowed down to, I'm just not smart enough to make the decision on my own.

Thoughts?  Thoughts that don't include unmounting "root," which seems like a horrible-tasting idea? (Pretty sure the 'puter is smart enough not to let me try to do that anyway.)




Oh, and old-polack, that's totally what the manual says.  Yep.  Read that at http://linux.die.net/man/8/fsck.  And while I speak english, bad english, spanglish, male, drunk, drunken male, and several variations thereon, computer manual is not in my list of language subroutines (right up there with tact and human pair bonding).  So while the manual totally says that, I know more latin than manual and it's greek to me.

All of the above quoted commands are trying to check a mounted filesystem. That will lead to further damage to the filesystem, and possibly complete destruction of the filesystem. Filesystems always need to be checked while unmounted.

If /dev/sda1 is your / partition or your /home partition, you need to do the filesystem check from a liveCD or another installed OS, if you have one.

[Meemaw]

Right...
Totally...
I'm even farther out of my depth than MeeMaw, so the question really is:
What on earth do I do now?
It doesn't give me the option to answer any question except whether to ignore the error in block 6651906, and ignoring an error just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I just want it fixeded and haven't the foggiest how one fixeses this problem (hence the phone call to MeeMaw).

I assume that what y'all are trying to say is that I need to give the 'puter a command to "fix yourself, idget!"  Which command would that be?  Or am I here too soon and you haven't quite decided among yourselves?

We did try "fsck /media/sda1" and it found that block error.  I thought maybe "fsck -l /media/sda1" so it could list my bad blocks and I could maybe-might-possibly find out how extensive the damage is (if it's a big ol' chunk of my computer, I can just assume the gods have deemed it poor judgement on my part to have internet installed in my home and turn the ethernet off, thus saving myself the cash and paying penance in the form of computerlessness until such time as i can afford a replacement - one never questions the gods.)

Or, if y'all would prefer, I can put try "fsck -p /media/sda1" to make it try to fix itself without asking me anything it doesn't absolutely have to. Or "fsck -y /media/sda1" so it'll ignore that error I'm afraid to and go on with its bad self.  That's kind of what I've got it narrowed down to, I'm just not smart enough to make the decision on my own.

Thoughts?  Thoughts that don't include unmounting "root," which seems like a horrible-tasting idea? (Pretty sure the 'puter is smart enough not to let me try to do that anyway.)

All of the above quoted commands are trying to check a mounted filesystem. That will lead to further damage to the filesystem, and possibly complete destruction of the filesystem. Filesystems always need to be checked while unmounted.

If /dev/sda1 is your / partition or your /home partition, you need to do the filesystem check from a liveCD or another installed OS, if you have one.

I think I'm seeing that a mounted drive shows up in /media... and an unmounted drive is ONLY in /dev.... is that correct? If it is, her /dev/sda1 is unmounted and her commands above should be changed. If I'm wrong, she CAN do     umount /dev/sda1, right?  Yes, sda1 is her root.

I gave her a live cd just so she could run fsck from it.... and I know that's what she's doing.... so isn't
fsck -fy /dev/sda1       the correct command? ( The f forces the check and the y says yes to all questions, right?) 

Thanks for all your help, O-P!

[Old-Polack]

I think I'm seeing that a mounted drive shows up in /media... and an unmounted drive is ONLY in /dev.... is that correct? If it is, her /dev/sda1 is unmounted and her commands above should be changed. If I'm wrong, she CAN do     umount /dev/sda1, right?  Yes, sda1 is her root.

I gave her a live cd just so she could run fsck from it.... and I know that's what she's doing.... so isn't
fsck -fy /dev/sda1       the correct command? ( The f forces the check and the y says yes to all questions, right?) 

Thanks for all your help, O-P!

If she's using the liveCD, then the commands you show are correct. First the partition must be unmounted, then the filesystem check can be run. Adding the -c option will also run a badblocks check, and prevent future write attempts to those bad blocks found, using instead individual substitute blocks that are reserved for just that purpose.

From man e2fsck:

-c     This  option  causes  e2fsck  to  use badblocks (8 ) program to do a read-only scan of the
              device in order to find any bad blocks.  If any bad blocks are found, they are added  to
              the  bad  block  inode  to prevent them from being allocated to a file or directory.  If
              this option is specified twice, then the bad block  scan  will  be  done  using  a  non-
              destructive read-write test.

If the badblocks check is wanted, the command would then be;

[root@localhost ~]# fsck -fyc /dev/sda1                   <Enter>

[Just17]

This is, as best I can, my suggestion for a step by step ......


Run from a live CD

Open a terminal and  su  to root. Issue the command

umount -a

to ensure no partitions are mounted. Next do

fdisk -l   (that is a lower case L)

to get a list of partitions on the HDD.

Use the info in that list to check the relevant partition/s with

(I would first use fsck -p /dev/sdXy here, but as AS pointed out that is likely duplication and unnecessary)

fsck  -v -f -y   /dev/sdXy ....  where Xy represent the info from the fdisk command (replace Xy with a1 maybe)

Copy/paste the output of the command for opinion on the result.


There may be changes to the above, based on other opinion .....  for instance I would not do a bad block check at this time, but would do so afterwards, but others might differ on that.

regards.

[coyoteawooo]

This is so totally why I never got very far in computer programming.  I couldn't even get those little DOS programs that draw neat little pictures to work.

So... I ~can~ unmount root?  And I need to tell the terminal to do that first (I'm running it off the liveCD because every time I try to boot it tells me that I have an error and drops me into a shell - I assume that's like a terminal, without actually getting to boot up and check my e-mail first).
So should I just unmount root (sda1) and try to fix that, or unmount everything and tell it to get crazy on it?  I would like to run a check on *6 or *7 (my public and personal files) to make sure everything goes smoothly.  That way if I run into any unforeseen problems, I'll only lose a few music files (and that's what itunes is for, right?) but I'm not sure if it would work the same way.
But, unmount.  Then check for bad blocks.  Then force check and repair bad blocks.  Is that right?  (How can a creature made of carbon and silicates be having this much difficulty understanding a machine made of carbon and silicates?  We're like cousins facryinaloud!)

All right.  I'm going to breathe.  And remember the patience and tolerance without which no other creature on this planet would be able to cope with the existence of a doofus like me.
So:
su
root
unmount -a
fsck -l /dev/sda# (to find which blocks are bad)
fsck -fcy /dev/sda# ( to force the check, add bad blocks to the list, and answer questions on my behalf)
(screw something up because that's what I'm really good at when it comes to computers) -or- (behold, a repair has been made)

Is that the gist? And should I add v to make it tell me what's going on? Not that I'll know what it's saying, but it'll give me something pretty to stare at.
Sometimes I think I'd rather be dealing with HAL.  At least his was a moral dilemma. And he could talk.
But thank you all for everything you're doing! I know I'm horribly, ridiculously dumb in these areas.  Thank you, thank you, thank you for trying to pound knowledge into my head.  I need it or I will explode.  That happens to me sometimes.

[Meemaw]

(Don't feel bad, honey... I almost flunked programming myself!)

If you are running the live cd, your hard drive isn't mounted because the live cd has it's own root.... if you want to view files on your hard drive, you have to mount it ... but it has to be be unmounted to do the fsck. 

and it has to be umount -a    not unmount -a   (the -a unmounts all partitions)

then

fsck -v -f -y /dev/sda1

Breathe first!!! 
Thanks so much for your patience, guys!!!!!!  I'm sure it's difficult working with both of us ...
 

[Just17]

coyoteawooo,
                         I appreciate it might seem like semantics to you, but .... your use of 'root' above is confusing.

What's worse, I think I will find it hard to explain ....

what is commonly referred to as 'root' can have two meanings; the first refers to the administrator privileges, or root privileges. So when you are told to 'su to root', that means to elevate your privileges to those of the administrator, to do something that needs those privileges.

root is also used to refer to the filesystem which holds the operating system; so when a reference is made to the 'root partition' it is the partition that holds the currently running OS that is being referenced.

currently running .......  is most important here. When operating from a liveCD your currently running root partition is not on the hard drive, and so the partition on the HDD is not referred to as root in that situation.

So the  /dev/sdXy  notation is used to designate partitions which are not part of the presently running operating system.

I hope that did not confuse things even more. 

*******

Now, to apply the above ....

I ~can~ unmount root?

No, you cannot unmount the OS you are running, but you can unmount the partition that the HDD install uses as its root partition .....  and all other unneeded partitions too, by using the

umount -a

command. This will tell you it cannot unmount its own root, but all unnecessary partitions will be unmounted. (The -a option means ALL)

Please take note of the spelling of the command ....  it is not unmount as you posted, but umount.

I would suggest you also use the  -v  option in fsck, to get a report of what it found etc. and save that report. Such a report may be useful when making decisions about the HDD.

[Just17]

(Don't feel bad, honey... I almost flunked programming myself!)

If you are running the live cd, your hard drive isn't mounted because the live cd has it's own root.... if you want to view files on your hard drive, you have to mount it ... but it has to be be unmounted to do the fsck.  

and it has to be umount -a    not unmount -a   (the -a unmounts all partitions)

then

fsck -v -f -y /dev/sda1

Breathe first!!!  
Thanks so much for your patience, guys!!!!!!  I'm sure it's difficult working with both of us ...
 

meemaw,
                  You posted as I was typing the previous post. I just want to add here that some liveCDs mount all partitions by default, and for that reason the umount -a command should be used before working on any of the partitions. This ensures that they are unmounted, regardless of the default settings of any particular LiveCD.
  In most circumstances it might not be needed, so it is a means of making sure is all.

regards  

[Meemaw]

(Don't feel bad, honey... I almost flunked programming myself!)

If you are running the live cd, your hard drive isn't mounted because the live cd has it's own root.... if you want to view files on your hard drive, you have to mount it ... but it has to be be unmounted to do the fsck.  

and it has to be umount -a    not unmount -a   (the -a unmounts all partitions)

then

fsck -v -f -y /dev/sda1

Breathe first!!!  
Thanks so much for your patience, guys!!!!!!  I'm sure it's difficult working with both of us ...
 

meemaw,
                  You posted as I was typing the previous post. I just want to add here that some liveCDs mount all partitions by default, and for that reason the umount -a command should be used before working on any of the partitions. This ensures that they are unmounted, regardless of the default settings of any particular LiveCD.
  In most circumstances it might not be needed, so it is a means of making sure is all.

regards  

Thanks!!!   I think I'm doing more harm than good, so I'd better let you guys help her... I just wanted her to realize that the live cd is it's own OS, so her hard drive's root partition can & should be unmounted for the fsck.  (Just tryin to help...)
 

[Just17]

(Don't feel bad, honey... I almost flunked programming myself!)

If you are running the live cd, your hard drive isn't mounted because the live cd has it's own root.... if you want to view files on your hard drive, you have to mount it ... but it has to be be unmounted to do the fsck.  

and it has to be umount -a    not unmount -a   (the -a unmounts all partitions)

then

fsck -v -f -y /dev/sda1

Breathe first!!!  
Thanks so much for your patience, guys!!!!!!  I'm sure it's difficult working with both of us ...
 

meemaw,
                  You posted as I was typing the previous post. I just want to add here that some liveCDs mount all partitions by default, and for that reason the umount -a command should be used before working on any of the partitions. This ensures that they are unmounted, regardless of the default settings of any particular LiveCD.
  In most circumstances it might not be needed, so it is a means of making sure is all.

regards  

Thanks!!!   I think I'm doing more harm than good, so I'd better let you guys help her... I just wanted her to realize that the live cd is it's own OS, so her hard drive's root partition can & should be unmounted for the fsck.  (Just tryin to help...)
 

It was not meant as a criticism (I was agreeing with you ), only added information about why *I* think it should always be used  

[Meemaw]

It was not meant as a criticism (I was agreeing with you ), only added information about why *I* think it should always be used  

I know that.... I appreciate all your help....  thanks again.   

[coyoteawooo]

The "root" part was just getting it straight in my own head - it's the password on the liveCD that the terminal is going to ask me for when I go super user.  I probably should have taken it out, but I was trying to keep myself on task.  Like not forgetting a step in changing the toilet paper roll, or instead of empty tp roll you end up with no tp roll.
Well, let's try it and hope I don't need a new computer for Christmas, 'cause I really want that coffee pot (it makes lattes!!)

[root@localhost ~]# umount -a
umount: /: device is busy.
        (In some cases useful info about processes that use
         the device is found by lsof(8 ) or fuser(1))

Thoughts? (there was no space between the 8 and the ), in case you were wondering.  But when I tried to post it, the system turned it into a smiley) Please?  And thank you ever so much!!

[djohnston]

[root@localhost ~]# umount -a
umount: /: device is busy.
        (In some cases useful info about processes that use
         the device is found by lsof(8 ) or fuser(1))

You're on the right track. That error message is normal. You told the computer to unmount all partitions, but it cannot unmount the root partition. (The root partition is displayed as /.) Hence, the reason for the error message. If you want to see if the partition you are going to run the filesystem check on is mounted or not, simply issue the mount command. The list of mounted partitions will be displayed. So, starting again from the booted live CD,

umount -a
mount
fsck -v -f -y /dev/sda1

[coyoteawooo]

So, I did that and this is what it said:
/dev/sda1: ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****

  163893 inodes used (8.49%)
    3624 non-contiguous files (2.2%)
     131 non-contiguous directories (0.1%)
         # of inodes with ind/dind/tind blocks: 9707/204/1
 3222955 blocks used (41.80%)
       0 bad blocks
       2 large files

  124354 regular files
   14091 directories
    3413 character device files
   13613 block device files
       0 fifos
     608 links
    8336 symbolic links (8211 fast symbolic links)
      77 sockets
--------
  164492 files

I will try to reboot now and...

I HAVE BOOT! WOOHOO!  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now I just have three questions:
Is there anything else I need to do now?  Or am I good?
Whose idea was it for the LiveCD screensaver to say, "Hi.  I'm your screensaver and I love you!"
And three, Meemaw says there's a way to make the newest kernel my default kernel, so i don't have to stand around waiting for that screen and select it manually.  Where do i find that?

[Just17]

I HAVE BOOT! WOOHOO!  THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good show!  

Now I just have three questions:
Is there anything else I need to do now?  Or am I good?

If everything is working properly then all should be good.

Whose idea was it for the LiveCD screensaver to say, "Hi.  I'm your screensaver and I love you!"

Some Texas humour  

And three, Meemaw says there's a way to make the newest kernel my default kernel, so i don't have to stand around waiting for that screen and select it manually.  Where do i find that?

Nor sure what you mean by 'that screen' ......  maybe a little better description would help us understand.  

regards