|sudo debsums -s|

|https://askubuntu.com/questions/858183/sfc-scannow-for-ubuntu
|

Nic wrote:

> Subject: Is this command the same as windows sfc /scannow

That win command enables the win SFC utility to scan and repair/restore
win system files (if run as admin).

I don't like to do something like that w/o knowing whether or not there
are b0rken files. Win has an alternate command

sfc /verifyonly

One of the answers at your link referred to this useful ub page:

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FilesystemTroubleshooting

> Basic filesystem checks and repairs
>
> The most common method of checking filesystem's health is by running
> what's commonly known as the fsck utility. This tool should only be
> run against an unmounted filesystem to check for possible issues.
> Nearly all well established filesystem types have their fsck tool.
> e.g.: ext2/3/4 filesystems have the e2fsck tool. Most notable
> exception until very recently was btrfs. There are also filesystems
> that do not need a filesystem check tool i.e.: read-only filesystems
> like iso9660 and udf.

So, I would say 'don't do what the command you asked about does'.

--
Mike Easter

On 8/30/21 3:26 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Nic wrote:
>
>> Subject: Is this command the same as windows sfc /scannow
>
> That win command enables the win SFC utility to scan and repair/restore
> win system files (if run as admin).
>
> I don't like to do something like that w/o knowing whether or not there
> are b0rken files.  Win has an alternate command
>
>  sfc /verifyonly
>
> One of the answers at your link referred to this useful ub page:
>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FilesystemTroubleshooting
>
>> Basic filesystem checks and repairs
>>
>> The most common method of checking filesystem's health is by running
>> what's commonly known as the fsck utility. This tool should only be
>> run against an unmounted filesystem to check for possible issues.
>> Nearly all well established filesystem types have their fsck tool.
>> e.g.: ext2/3/4 filesystems have the e2fsck tool. Most notable
>> exception until very recently was btrfs. There are also filesystems
>> that do not need a filesystem check tool i.e.: read-only filesystems
>> like iso9660 and udf.
>
> So, I would say 'don't do what the command you asked about does'.
>
Too late, I ran the command "sudo debsums -s" it ran through a lot of
stuff and ended quietly. Here I am still up and running. So you think
that booting a live Linux and using G-Parted to run a "FileCheck" on the
unmounted drive which contains the Linux Mint that I am using is the
better way to go.

Nic wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Nic wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: Is this command the same as windows sfc /scannow
>>
>> So, I would say 'don't do what the command you asked about does'.
>>
> Too late, I ran the command "sudo debsums -s" it ran through a lot of
> stuff and ended quietly. Here I am still up and running. So you think
> that booting a live Linux and using G-Parted to run a "FileCheck" on the
> unmounted drive which contains the Linux Mint that I am using is the
> better way to go.
>
You don't even have to do it that way. If you are talking about an
installed system, the fsck can be done prior to its boot. From the same
link I posted earlier:

> There are 4 ways the fsck tool usually gets run (listed in order of
> frequency of occurrence):
>
> it runs automatically during computer bootup every X days or Y mounts
> (whichever comes first). This is determined during the creation of
> the filesystem and can later be adjusted using tune2fs.
>
> it runs automatically if a filesystem has not been cleanly unmounted
> (e.g.: powercut)
>
> user runs it against an unmounted filesystem
>
> user makes it run at next bootup

--
Mike Easter

Nic wrote:
> Too late, I ran the command "sudo debsums -s" it ran through a lot of
> stuff and ended quietly. Here I am still up and running.

What is is you are trying to troubleshoot?

--
Mike Easter

On 8/30/21 4:03 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> Nic wrote:
>> Too late, I ran the command "sudo debsums -s" it ran through a lot of
>> stuff and ended quietly. Here I am still up and running.
>
> What is is you are trying to troubleshoot?
>
Some sluggishness in my copy and paste operations, not sure if it is FF
browser problem, and possible USB issues, where my wired keyboard is
losing power, it is possible that the contacts are showing signs of
oxidation and thus poor contact, when I jiggle the usb plug the problem
seems to go away.

Nic wrote:
> Some sluggishness in my copy and paste operations, not sure if it is FF
> browser problem, and possible USB issues, where my wired keyboard is
> losing power, it is possible that the contacts are showing signs of
> oxidation and thus poor contact, when I jiggle the usb plug the problem
> seems to go away.

I would explore the hardware qx/s in the manner you described about
booting a live and doing those things in there.

I would explore software vs resources qx/s by performing in a 'quieter'
environment, such as not in Ffx; doing C&P in something lighter like a
little editor.

It doesn't strike me as a system file system problem 'off the bat'.

If you have such as a conky or other utility that gives realtime
cpu/ram, you could watch that/ the resource utilization/ in the sluggish
environment.

--
Mike Easter

On 8/30/21 4:27 PM, Mike Easter wrote:
> If you have such as a 'conky' or other utility that gives realtime
> cpu/ram, you could watch that/ the resource utilization/ in the
> sluggish environment

Good point, will try to remember, Thanks