On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM, jd1008 jd1008@gmail.com wrote:

On 03/03/2016 06:56 PM, Jack Craig wrote:

...

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, jd1008 <jd1008@gmail.com mailto: jd1008@gmail.com> wrote:

I have a 4tb hfsplus partition.
Mounting and writing to it present no problems.
However
1. sync command hangs
2. umount of any hfsplus partion, hangs.
3. reboot hangs (it never reboots, forcing me to use the hard reset)
4. shutdown now hangs requires hard reset.
5. using the gui  system -> shutdown ->
[shutdown|restart|suspend|hibernate]
   hang forever, thus also requiring hard reset.

The rpm is: hfsplus-tools-540.1.linux3-9.fc22.x86_64

you are aware hfs doesnt honor character cases, right?

eg, aBc == AbC !!

just fyi,...

Hey Jack, So, just like windoze??

I wondered if you had any links (linux FS <->HFS) that might cause hangs during fsck.

does fsck ever come up clean on the HFS?

run while not mounted...

Well, I am not concerned about file contents or file names. I just like to be able to mount it, write to it, check what I wrote, and then unmount it. It is unmounting that hangs umount, shutdown, reboot ...etc.

-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:38 PM, jd1008 jd1008@gmail.com wrote:

On 03/04/2016 08:25 PM, Jack Craig wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 9:21 AM, jd1008 <jd1008@gmail.com mailto: jd1008@gmail.com> wrote:

On 03/03/2016 06:56 PM, Jack Craig wrote:



    On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM, jd1008 <jd1008@gmail.com
    <mailto:jd1008@gmail.com> <mailto:jd1008@gmail.com
    <mailto:jd1008@gmail.com>>> wrote:

        I have a 4tb hfsplus partition.

and then unmount it.
It is unmounting that hangs  umount, shutdown, reboot ...etc.

You did not read my reply to Rick Stevens?

no, my bad, apologies, ...

-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org

On 03/04/2016 11:28 AM, Tim wrote:

Allegedly, on or about 03 March 2016, jd1008 sent:

...

I have a 4tb hfsplus partition. Mounting and writing to it present no problems. However

1. sync command hangs

Educated guess... file system fault? Is there a file system check program for that particular filing system.

Hanging sync sounds like it's not finishing updating the filesystem (the original write seemed to work, because it didn't actually write and complete when you thought it did, it's gone into cache, you're returned to carry on doing other things, and syncing would be the next step in the background (though it would try to do it, some time after the write, before you tried manually syncing).

Though, another thought is - would there be anything else with a grip on the mount point, that's not letting go?

...

2. umount of any hfsplus partion, hangs.
3. reboot hangs (it never reboots, forcing me to use the hard reset)
4. shutdown now hangs requires hard reset.
5. using the gui system -> shutdown -> [shutdown|restart|suspend|hibernate] hang forever, thus also requiring hard reset.

All of those would be failing for the same reason - trying to sync a file system before it shuts down, and it'll wait until the sync finished, or perhaps for a lengthy timeout.

I'd agree with this. HFS+ is a journaled filesystem. Support for the journaling is fairly new to Linux and there may be some oopsies. In the past it wasn't even writable under Linux--you had to disable journaling on the filesystem on a Mac, then you could mount it RW on Linux. That's not the case now.

I'd suggest running fuser or lsof and see if there's something using that drive before you try a shutdown or unmount. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - The world is coming to an end ... SAVE YOUR FILES!!! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 03/04/2016 12:44 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

On 03/04/2016 11:28 AM, Tim wrote:

...

Allegedly, on or about 03 March 2016, jd1008 sent:

...

I have a 4tb hfsplus partition. Mounting and writing to it present no problems. However

1. sync command hangs

Educated guess... file system fault? Is there a file system check program for that particular filing system.

Hanging sync sounds like it's not finishing updating the filesystem (the original write seemed to work, because it didn't actually write and complete when you thought it did, it's gone into cache, you're returned to carry on doing other things, and syncing would be the next step in the background (though it would try to do it, some time after the write, before you tried manually syncing).

Though, another thought is - would there be anything else with a grip on the mount point, that's not letting go?

...

2. umount of any hfsplus partion, hangs.
3. reboot hangs (it never reboots, forcing me to use the hard reset)
4. shutdown now hangs requires hard reset.
5. using the gui system -> shutdown ->

[shutdown|restart|suspend|hibernate] hang forever, thus also requiring hard reset.

All of those would be failing for the same reason - trying to sync a file system before it shuts down, and it'll wait until the sync finished, or perhaps for a lengthy timeout.

I'd agree with this. HFS+ is a journaled filesystem. Support for the journaling is fairly new to Linux and there may be some oopsies. In the past it wasn't even writable under Linux--you had to disable journaling on the filesystem on a Mac, then you could mount it RW on Linux. That's not the case now.

I'd suggest running fuser or lsof and see if there's something using that drive before you try a shutdown or unmount.

Update: I just inserted the drive (connected it to usb port) and got this in dmesg:

[10915.296084] hfsplus: Filesystem was not cleanly unmounted, running fsck.hfsplus is recommended. mounting read-only.

The above message is due to yesterday's failure to umount.

I unmounted it (strange that it did not run fsck automagically), and ran fsck.hfsplus and remounted, copied some files to it, executed sync and all is now well. So, I now must have totally overlooked the message in dmesg after connecting the drive, and proceeded to write to it without first unmounting it and running fsck, and remounting it.

I wish that the user would get a visible banner about this. I did not see it yesterday, as I assumed all was well.

Thanx to all who replied.

Cheers,

JD

On 03/04/2016 12:45 PM, jd1008 wrote:

but as you know, fsck runs automagically when the system detects insertion into the usb port a storage device, and attempts to mount it, and find it was not shutdown cleanly, and runs the fsck. So, not sure about the "grip" :)

I don't think that this is what's happening, because the system shouldn't be able to mount the drive until fsck is finished. It's always best to run fsck when the partition isn't mounted, especially if you expect it to need repair and I'd expect mount to fail if you try to run mount something that's getting fscked.

I wonder if I should open a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com and/or at bugzilla.kernel.org.

Next time this happens, find out if fsck is running. Run this:

ps aux | grep fsck | grep -v grep

in a terminal (no need for root) and if you get no response except a prompt, fsck isn't running somewhere.

On 03/04/2016 01:24 PM, jd1008 wrote:

On 03/04/2016 01:59 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:

...

On 03/04/2016 12:45 PM, jd1008 wrote:

...

but as you know, fsck runs automagically when the system detects insertion into the usb port a storage device, and attempts to mount it, and find it was not shutdown cleanly, and runs the fsck. So, not sure about the "grip" :)

I don't think that this is what's happening, because the system shouldn't be able to mount the drive until fsck is finished. It's always best to run fsck when the partition isn't mounted, especially if you expect it to need repair and I'd expect mount to fail if you try to run mount something that's getting fscked.

...

I wonder if I should open a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com and/or at bugzilla.kernel.org.

Next time this happens, find out if fsck is running. Run this:

ps aux | grep fsck | grep -v grep

in a terminal (no need for root) and if you get no response except a prompt, fsck isn't running somewhere.

Thanx Joe. I just replied to Rick. It was my fault, but my fault was ably assisted by the system not popping a banner saying the the device was not unmounted cleanly. The message only went into the message buffer, and never appears on the GUI file browser. And unfortunately, no automagic fsck was running.

I think the fsck clears the "checkedDate" field in the volume header when it starts, indicating that an fsck is currently being done. When the fsck completes, it fills in the field. So, if you yank it before the fsck is complete, the field is clear.

When you plug it in again, the system sees that it's "not clean" because the field is empty, but assumes that an fsck is in progress because the field is indeed clear (and truthfully, there was one in progress before you rudely interrupted it). Since it assumes there's an fsck in progress, it doesn't launch a new one.

That's just a wild guess. Other filesystems do similar things (generally by setting an "in-fsck" flag in the header when starting and clearing it when done). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------

On 03/04/2016 02:00 PM, jd1008 wrote:

On 03/04/2016 02:54 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:

...

On 03/04/2016 01:24 PM, jd1008 wrote:

...

On 03/04/2016 01:59 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:

...

On 03/04/2016 12:45 PM, jd1008 wrote:

...

but as you know, fsck runs automagically when the system detects insertion into the usb port a storage device, and attempts to mount it, and find it was not shutdown cleanly, and runs the fsck. So, not sure about the "grip" :)

I don't think that this is what's happening, because the system shouldn't be able to mount the drive until fsck is finished. It's always best to run fsck when the partition isn't mounted, especially if you expect it to need repair and I'd expect mount to fail if you try to run mount something that's getting fscked.

...

I wonder if I should open a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com and/or at bugzilla.kernel.org.

Next time this happens, find out if fsck is running. Run this:

ps aux | grep fsck | grep -v grep

in a terminal (no need for root) and if you get no response except a prompt, fsck isn't running somewhere.

Thanx Joe. I just replied to Rick. It was my fault, but my fault was ably assisted by the system not popping a banner saying the the device was not unmounted cleanly. The message only went into the message buffer, and never appears on the GUI file browser. And unfortunately, no automagic fsck was running.

I think the fsck clears the "checkedDate" field in the volume header when it starts, indicating that an fsck is currently being done. When the fsck completes, it fills in the field. So, if you yank it before the fsck is complete, the field is clear.

When you plug it in again, the system sees that it's "not clean" because the field is empty, but assumes that an fsck is in progress because the field is indeed clear (and truthfully, there was one in progress before you rudely interrupted it). Since it assumes there's an fsck in progress, it doesn't launch a new one.

That's just a wild guess. Other filesystems do similar things (generally by setting an "in-fsck" flag in the header when starting and clearing it when done).

All well and good. But I wish there were a dismissable banner on the desktop notifying the user of this.

It's interesting. The "fsck.hfsplus" program has a "-g" flag that's supposed to output its messages in "GUI format", whatever the hell that is:

-g Causes fsck.hfsplus to generate its output strings in GUI format. This option is used when another application with a graphical user interface (like Mac OS X Disk Utility) is invoking the fsck.hfsplus tool.

You'd think the system would use that or something similar. Perhaps they aren't compatible (Apple does lots of odd things and the HFS+ filesystem is a pretty damned odd fish). Torvalds thinks it's hideous. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "I understand Windows 2000 has a Y2K problem." - ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Allegedly, on or about 04 March 2016, jd1008 sent:

but as you know, fsck runs automagically when the system detects insertion into the usb port a storage device, and attempts to mount it, and find it was not shutdown cleanly, and runs the fsck.

Actually, I don't know that. I was of the understanding that fsck is not done on automounted devices, since I've never been aware of it running on them (no lengthy delays), and have seen repeated warnings in logs (later on) that fsck needs to be run on some devices that have been plugged in. The automounter has been happy enough to mount devices with problems on them, for me, though that may well depend on the kind of file system fault.

Tim:

...

Actually, I don't know that. I was of the understanding that fsck is not done on automounted devices, since I've never been aware of it

jd1008

I stand corrected. You are right.

I'm, also, fairly sure that auto file system checking is only done at boot time, to things mentioned in the /etc/fstab file. And that's done according to the numerical parameters at the end of the lines.

e.g. The "1 1" etc, at the end of these:

UUID=719---diddlywhop----34aa / ext4 defaults 1 1 UUID=e3c---flargletwip---a073 /boot ext4 defaults 1 2 UUID=0c76da --- munge ----4ec swap swap defaults 0 0

With a "0" meaning, "don't."

Unless you look at logs, you have no clue that an inserted USB stick, or other media, has faults. There's no pop-up that suggests you need to fix it.

As I replied to Rick Stevens on 03/04/2016 02:18 PM Mountain Standard Time.

Hmm, that doesn't quite work. My mailer, probably most, converts the listed email dates into my local time. You have to open each message to see it listed with "their local time (my local time)." The only way to refer to a specific message is with its message ID, something that most mail clients hide (unless you delve through the normally hidden headings), and few mail clients ever let you open a message when clicking on a message ID. I used to have one that did on my Amiga, if someone quoted a message ID, and I clicked on it, the mail program found it for me and showed it.

I presume you meant this one: message-id:56DA07F4.1060000@alldigital.com

Try clicking on that, and my mail program tries to write a reply to it, thinking its an email address. Even if I've got headers showing, and try clicking on it in a header (where it *should* know what the data is), it does the same thing. I don't know, twenty years behind my Amiga, I just don't know...

On 06Mar2016 15:15, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:

jd1008

...

As I replied to Rick Stevens on 03/04/2016 02:18 PM Mountain Standard Time.

Hmm, that doesn't quite work. My mailer, probably most, converts the listed email dates into my local time.

Mine will display either (mutt) but I, like I suspect most, display my local time so that I have intuitive feel for the date of the messages.

JD, it is good practice to recite your UTC offset instead of things like "Mountain Standard Time", which is largely familiar only to USA residents.

You have to open each message to see it listed with "their local time (my local time)." The only way to refer to a specific message is with its message ID, something that most mail clients hide (unless you delve through the normally hidden headings), and few mail clients ever let you open a message when clicking on a message ID.

Mutt will let you locate a message given its id.

I used to have one that did on my Amiga, if someone quoted a message ID, and I clicked on it, the mail program found it for me and showed it.

I presume you meant this one: message-id:56DA07F4.1060000@alldigital.com

Technically, the angle brackets ("<....>") are a part of the message-id, you shouldn't leave them out.

Cheers, Cameron Simpson cs@zip.com.au

On 08Mar2016 16:49, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:

Tim:

...

...

Hmm, that doesn't quite work. My mailer, probably most, converts the listed email dates into my local time.

Cameron Simpson

...

Mine will display either (mutt) but I, like I suspect most, display my local time so that I have intuitive feel for the date of the messages.

If you want to see the order of when messages were written/posted (which are two different things), because you're trying to get a grasp on a thread, then you need things translated into the same timezone. It makes more sense to most people for that to be their own. While it's convenient to have your own and theirs, there's not the space to show them in the message list.

Surely that depends on the width of your terminal? But in practice, mine are not normally wide enough for both either when reading mail; I only use wide ones for log files or wide program output. My message display index looks like this:

08Mar2016 17:19 Tim N ┌> Fedora 3.7K 08Mar2016 16:36 To Users - ┌> Fedora, Mine 2.2K 06Mar2016 16:17 jd1008 - ├> Fedora 3.1K 06Mar2016 15:45 Tim - ┌>Re: hfsplus problems Fedora 3.4K

And showing my local time, as you would expect. (That is all nicely aligned for any unfortunates viewing that listing in a variable width font.)

...

...

I presume you meant this one: message-id:56DA07F4.1060000@alldigital.com

...

Technically, the angle brackets ("<....>") are a part of the message-id, you shouldn't leave them out.

I wasn't aware of that. I thought it was just like in email addresses, where they're a delimiter (email addresses can't contain pointy brackets, so they're a clear indicator of the beginning and end of the address), but not required if there's nothing else nearby.

That depends on your point of view. Technically, this whole thing:

Cameron Simpson cs@zip.com.au

is my email address. A mail system is only meant to pay attention to certain parts of it for delivery purposes, but it is _all_ "my address".

By way of example, if you look at the list headers, you'll notice addresses without them, if they have no other adjacent text.

e.g. To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org

Another email addressing trick few people know, is that you can put comments in parentheses with an address. The mail servers will not try to parse them, same as how they ignore your name, and only parse the actual address to send the message.

e.g. To: John Doe (managing director) jd@example.com

You want to closely read the RFCs for this. There are strict requirements on what is and is not allowed inside and outside parentheses, and the parentheses _are_ structural punctuation: they must match and may nest!

The RFCs have been written to permit most (well, Western, well, English) based human names to be written "bare" in the Full Name localpart@hostpart form; you can use bare apostrophes for example. But not double quotes! They are punctuation!

If you suspect someone you write to is responsible for spam coming in your direction, you can slightly tailor your personal details outside of the address, and see if they get passed along, to confirm your suspicions.

Ah. Disinformation! Neat. Has this ever paid off for you?

Cheers, Cameron Simpson cs@zip.com.au

On 03/08/2016 05:53 AM, Tim wrote:

Allegedly, on or about 08 March 2016, Cameron Simpson sent:

...

That depends on your point of view. Technically, this whole thing:

Cameron Simpson cs@zip.com.au

is my email address. A mail system is only meant to pay attention to certain parts of it for delivery purposes, but it is _all_ "my address".

Well, from what I've read, mostly long ago. You get

display name (comment) <address>

Whack a comma on the end, and you can build up a list of other addresses, to send emails to multiple recipients. And because of that (using a comma as a delimiter), if you want a comma in your display name, you need to quote it. e.g. "Doe, John" john@example.com

But the /address/ is the only part used for delivery purposes. As far as the SMTP system is concerned, that's the address.

But I take your point. If I write an address on a snail mail envelope, we do consider the whole thing the address to them. Though, generally speaking, the post office doesn't care about the name. They're like SMTP, only caring about the location details. You're going to need to know your local postman on a more personal level before they hesitate in giving you an envelope with someone else's name on it.

...

...

If you suspect someone you write to is responsible for spam coming in your direction, you can slightly tailor your personal details outside of the address, and see if they get passed along, to confirm your suspicions.

...

Ah. Disinformation! Neat. Has this ever paid off for you?

Unfortunately, not. When it's come to submitting my address to something, on-line or otherwise, I always forget to do so. But I have caught one or two out by using completely different email addresses. That's one benefit of owning your own domain name, you can create new addresses as you see fit. Well, you can do that with some other services, too, but you have to jump through more hoops. One day we're going to be screwed by a company that insists on phone verification, and only one email address per phone number.

If I'd remembered to modify an existing address, I could have saved myself that extra hassle. Though I really don't want to do it by slightly misspelling my name, as some people do with this trick. Seeing my name wrong is just too grating.

Some of the big services did allow you to make sub-addresses to your existing account, either by adding a plus symbol and a word before the @ sign, or sometimes a dot, without having to configure anything extra with them (simply use the additional address, and it accepts it).

e.g. someone+extrabit@example.com or someone.extrabit@example.com

Uhm, if this is going to continue, please start a new thread. This last spate of messages has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the thread. I know it's hard not to go off on tangents, but this is pretty far out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "How does that damned three seashell thing work?" - - -- Sylvester Stallone, "Demolition Man" - ----------------------------------------------------------------------