Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'fsck versus fsck_hfs' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
fsck versus fsck_hfs
Authored by: SOX on Aug 14, '03 03:57:28PM

I thouhgt on apple's we were supposed to use fsck_hfs



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: fsck versus fsck_hfs
Authored by: jiclark on Aug 16, '03 01:42:52AM
Its a funny thing about this place. I can't remember how many times a really interesting question like this gets asked.... and nobody responds! I never cease to wonder if the Unix 'experts' actually seek to perpetuate the "mystique'?!? ;-}

---


[ Reply to This | # ]

Re: fsck versus fsck_hfs
Authored by: nobody on Aug 16, '03 12:33:01PM

If you call fsck, it will, if the program is able to determine that the volume you want to repair/check is a hfs volume, it will call fsck_hfs.
Do a ls -l /sbin/fsck* and you will see.
If you have a linux i386, there will be more versions of fsck*, depending non your installed filesystems in the kernel. OSX currently only supports hfs and "msdos" - FAT. Panther will introduce ntfs. There is some work ongoing at sourceforge to support EXT2 as a kernel extension in OSX.
So, it does not matter if you call fsck.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Re: fsck versus fsck_hfs
Authored by: sjk on Aug 18, '03 08:19:53PM
Do a ls -l /sbin/fsck* and you will see.

Actually, running strings /sbin/fsck | fgrep hfs is more supportive of your statement. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]