On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 08:16:42AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> Here is the updated version:
>
> http://centos.toracat.org/kmods/CentOS-4/xfs/SRPMS/
>
> Please discard the obsoleted ones (I did not bump the version/release
> number). Let me know when your binaries are ready for testing.
>
rebuild
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote:
>> We can push either version in the next weeks, say June 15th?
>> to their final repositories. Does that sound good?
>
> Not quite. That version is now obsolete - lacking a required
> Requir
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
> Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel
> (regular
> and centosplus). I am not
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Tru Huynh wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> The one for the .22 centosplus kernel will be nice to have as well.
> Btw I have rebuild the kmod-xfs independant version for the .22 kernel
> (regular
> and centosplus). I am not
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 03:07:00PM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> >> If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have
> >> corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have
>> corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build
>> those kmods or to supply a kernel version in
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
>
> The eighties called - they want their stone-age way to handle disks
> back
Heh. Well, if he wants them fsck'd in the first place ...
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.c
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 02:03:32PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi ??? spake the following:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
> >> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
> >> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 17:21, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Is this a reasonable choice on a 32 bit machine? I thought 4k stacks
> were a problem.
Oh yeah, I failed to mention in my previous e-mail that all the
machines I have running XFS are using x86_64 versions of CentOS.
I don't know if the 4k sta
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:10:58AM -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> If you are running CentOS-4, the last 2 kernels do not (yet) have
> corresponding kmod-xfs. You need to wait for CentOS devs to build
> those kmods or to supply a kernel version independent kmod.
I have just pushed the latest .22 kerne
on 5-14-2009 2:21 PM Les Mikesell spake the following:
> Scott Silva wrote:
>> on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
>>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
typing BEFORE I hit the
Scott Silva wrote:
> on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>>> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
>>> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
>>>
>>> The general consensus seems to be "If y
Am 14.05.2009 um 21:25 schrieb Bart Schaefer:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Bernhard Gschaider
> wrote:
>>
>> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
>> the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3.
>
> An option I haven't seen suggested yet
For a r
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
>>
>> It seems XFS might be added as a default to RHEL 5.4..
>>
> Probably not a default, but an option.
I wonder which high-end customer *finally* drove them to do this (if,
indeed, they are go
on 5-14-2009 1:24 PM Pasi � spake the following:
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
>> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
>>
>> The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use
>>
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>
> Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
> typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
>
> The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use
> XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not in
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Bernhard Gschaider
wrote:
>
> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
> the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3.
An option I haven't seen suggested yet is to split this into several
filesystems that can be fsck'd in para
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Filipe Brandenburger
wrote:
> Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yum
> config) unless you already need the centosplus kernel for another
> reason.
>
> See here:
> http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CentOSPlus#line-7
Hi,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 12:23, Bernhard Gschaider
wrote:
> which option offers the "smoothest sailing"
> (especially during kernel-updates):
>
> - kernel from centosplus
> - kmod-xfs from centosplus
> - kmod-xfs from extras
Use kmod-xfs from extras (it should be already enabled in your yu
Thank you all for your quick answers (you guys must have started
typing BEFORE I hit the Send-button).
The general consensus seems to be "If you can start anew: use
XFS". This leaves one question: as the XFS is not included in the
standard-kernel which option offers the "smoothest sailing"
(espec
Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our
> company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it.
>
> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
> the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Now my
> ex
2009/5/14 Bernhard Gschaider :
> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
> the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3.
Yes, using ext3 is a real pain especially on such large partitions. I
advice you to switch to XFS.
--
With best regards!
__
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 05:44:11PM +0200, Bernhard Gschaider wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our
> company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it.
>
> One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
> the user data which I f
Hi!
I'm justing in the process of setting up a new fileserver for our
company. I'm installing CentOS 5.3 (64 bit) on it.
One of the "problems" with it is that it has a 3.5TB filesystem for
the user data which I formatted during setup as an ext3. Now my
experience with our current fileserver is t
24 matches
Mail list logo
