[xubuntu-users] speeding up Xubuntu 7.10 by upgrading

[Radomir Dopieralski]

Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 10:45:36AM -0800: 
> > Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 09:12:40PM -0800:
> > > install a kernel for a 686. The documentation said to type "sudo
> > > apt-get install linux-686" from the command line. I was logged in as
> > > root, so I typed the above w/out "sudo". I got a bunch of errors, all
> > > of which contained the text "Buffer I/O error on device sda1, logical
> > > block".
> >
> > I don't want to worry you, but these kinds of errors usually mean
> > a hardware failure of the sda1 disk (probably a hard disk in this case).
> >
> > Try booting in the recovery mode and running fsck on that disk, possibly
> > with -c option to check for bad blocks.

> I typed "fsck"  into the command line and hit return, and got the following:
> 
> "fsck 1.40.2 (12-Jul-2007)
> e2fsck 1.40.2 (12-Jul-2007)
> /dev/sda1 is mounted.
> WARNING! Running e2fsck on a mounted filesystem may cause SEVER filesystem
> damage. Do you want to continue?"
 
> That sounded scary so I said "no". Should I say "yes" to that question?

Yes, it's normal, forgot to tell you about it. Type 'mount' to make sure
the partition is mounted read-only (it should be in the recovery mode, but
better safe than sorry). If it is not, type:

 mount / -o ro,remount

this should remount it in read-only mode, making sure that the filesystem
is not corrupted during checking. An alternative would be booting from
a livecd, then the system is not mounted, but with your specs this might
be slow. So, make sure it's read only and answer 'yes' to that question.

> If my disk is bad, did I ruin it by changing from Windows to Linux?

That's not possible, it's a physical fault.

> Can
> damage like that be caused by the disk running for too long? (It was on for
> almost a day while I was trying different install methods.)

Only if there is something wrong with cooling or you kept it in posistion
where proper cooling was not possible.

> I didn't have
> too many problems w/ XP on it, but maybe they were there and I didn't know
> about it until now. If the disk is bad, how was Linux able to be installed
> at all?

We are not sure if it's bad. That's the usual reason for these errors, but
there can be other -- that's why you're running a disk check. Also, if
only some parts of the disk are bad, fsck can mark them as such and the
system will just not use them for storing data.

-- 
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski <http://sheep.art.pl>
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  <www.asciiribbon.org> - against proprietary attachments