Re: [Cooker] ext3 miising in kernel
On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 06:59:45PM +0200, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: > When upgrading RC2 with RC2 I had a problem with the kernel not > supporting ext3. This is of cause fatal. I also had similar problems > with lack of support for reiserfs, in earlier betas of 9.2 > I have a mix of reiserfs and ext3 and ext2 filesystems. Oh, seems like it was a problem with lilo getting the wrong kernel or such. Using the real kernel versions instead of generic vmlinuz and then running lilo solved the problem. keld
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Alexander Skwar wrote: So sprach David Walluck am 2002-10-13 um 14:22:06 -0400 : Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can access your root partition if you build your own kernel. Is it really a problem of using XFS for /? Or is it "just" that the kernel might not be loadable, which can easily be circumvented by creating a tiny (<50 megs) ext2 /boot partition? Alexander Skwar I don't know how I could reparition the drive as it mostly has no free space. Why would the kernel not be loadable? A stock mandrake kernel always works fine, but I would prefer to be able to build my own. -- Sincerely, David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> msg79889/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
So sprach David Walluck am 2002-10-13 um 14:22:06 -0400 : > Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and > Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can > access your root partition if you build your own kernel. Is it really a problem of using XFS for /? Or is it "just" that the kernel might not be loadable, which can easily be circumvented by creating a tiny (<50 megs) ext2 /boot partition? Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.iso-top.biz |Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] iso-top.biz - Die günstige Art an Linux Distributionen zu kommen Uptime: 12 hours 1 minute
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
"Claudio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Claudio wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:04:14PM +0200 : >>> >>> quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this >>> problem since 9.0 beta 1... >>> If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! >> >> That is incorrect. It does work on ext3 and has worked since beta 1. >> The problem is that it doesn't work quite the way you think it does. A >> regular user cannot view his own quota usage. This is due to a shift in >> kernel theory, the shift being to move "policy" out of the kernel and >> into userland. The kernel only supports enforcement of that policy and >> not manipulation of that policy. > > To be exact, even root cannot see the right quota for a user on ext3 > filesystem. The files aquota.* are never up-to-date if root does not run > quotacheck. The only thing that really suggest you are out of quota is the > message "disk quota exceeded" while you're working. In my opinion, it > means that quota does NOT work on ext3. ;-) I think you are wrong, on my previous test doing a sync update the quota files. -- Warly
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Claudio wrote: > To be exact, even root cannot see the right quota for a user on ext3 > filesystem. The files aquota.* are never up-to-date if root does not run > quotacheck. The only thing that really suggest you are out of quota is the > message "disk quota exceeded" while you're working. In my opinion, it > means that quota does NOT work on ext3. ;-) > >From the Quota HowTo: Quotacheck is used to scan a file system for disk usages, and updates the quota record file "aquota.user" to the most recent state. I recommend running quotacheck at system bootup, and via cronjob periodically (say, every week?). -- snip --- To me this implies that things are working as designed. Whether or not that is your desired behavior is another question, but in testing it I didn't set out to redesign the quota system, simply to verify that it was working. Stew Benedict -- MandrakeSoft PPC FAQ: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ppcFAQ.php3 IRC: irc.openproject.net #cooker-ppc
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
> Claudio wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:04:14PM +0200 : >> >> quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this >> problem since 9.0 beta 1... >> If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > That is incorrect. It does work on ext3 and has worked since beta 1. > The problem is that it doesn't work quite the way you think it does. A > regular user cannot view his own quota usage. This is due to a shift in > kernel theory, the shift being to move "policy" out of the kernel and > into userland. The kernel only supports enforcement of that policy and > not manipulation of that policy. To be exact, even root cannot see the right quota for a user on ext3 filesystem. The files aquota.* are never up-to-date if root does not run quotacheck. The only thing that really suggest you are out of quota is the message "disk quota exceeded" while you're working. In my opinion, it means that quota does NOT work on ext3. ;-) Claudio
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Tuesday 15 October 2002 23:01, Todd Lyons wrote: > Claudio wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:04:14PM +0200 : > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > That is incorrect. It does work on ext3 and has worked since beta 1. > The problem is that it doesn't work quite the way you think it does. A > regular user cannot view his own quota usage. This is due to a shift in > kernel theory, the shift being to move "policy" out of the kernel and > into userland. The kernel only supports enforcement of that policy > and not manipulation of that policy. > > Quota is not supported for Reiserfs though. A few versions back it was > supported, but that was a patch added by Mandrake which is no longer > being applied. > > Blue skies... Todd I'd really like to see a Mandrake official recomendation for the default file system. I have seen the .kde/*rc files corruption but was not aware that it was directly attributable to Reiser. If this is indeed the case I will be converting back to ext2/3. I do however find Reiser quite fast in general use, especially when deleting directories with large numbers of files. -- John Allen, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Todd Lyons wrote: > Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote on Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 09:00:19PM +0200 : > >>El Dom 13 Oct 2002 20:22, David Walluck escribi?: >> >>>Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and >>>Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can >>>access your root partition if you build your own kernel. >> >> I have been using XFS in the root partition with 8.2 (and now with 9.0) >>without problems. May be your initrd file has not the necessary modules? > > > Agreed, I too have put XFS as the root partition and the mandrake > install-kernel script puts the correct modules into the initrd so that > the root fs can be mounted, no matter what its fstype. > > Blue skies... Todd Sometimes they are in the initrd, sometimes not, but the mount still fails. I have reported this on the list before, I don't know what other details I can offer that would be of help. One of two things happens: 1.) The installkernel script complains that it can't find the xfs modules and exits, even though what it should really do is try to build the initrd anyway. 2.) The initrd is built with the correct xfs modules, and the initrd is correctly added to lilo.conf (although, sometimes not, and I have to add by hand). 3.) Upon boot, mounting the root FS still fails. There seems to be several bugs in the installkernel script, but I'm still surprised that I have been able to fix this problem manually. -- Sincerely, David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> msg79111/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Claudio wrote on Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 06:04:14PM +0200 : > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! That is incorrect. It does work on ext3 and has worked since beta 1. The problem is that it doesn't work quite the way you think it does. A regular user cannot view his own quota usage. This is due to a shift in kernel theory, the shift being to move "policy" out of the kernel and into userland. The kernel only supports enforcement of that policy and not manipulation of that policy. Quota is not supported for Reiserfs though. A few versions back it was supported, but that was a patch added by Mandrake which is no longer being applied. Blue skies... Todd -- | MandrakeSoft USA | Sometimes you get what you want. | | http://www.mandrakesoft.com | Sometimes you get experience.| | http://www.mandrakelinux.com |--unknown origin | Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.19-16mdk msg79105/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Jose Antonio Becerra Permuy wrote on Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 09:00:19PM +0200 : > El Dom 13 Oct 2002 20:22, David Walluck escribi?: > > Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and > > Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can > > access your root partition if you build your own kernel. > I have been using XFS in the root partition with 8.2 (and now with 9.0) > without problems. May be your initrd file has not the necessary modules? Agreed, I too have put XFS as the root partition and the mandrake install-kernel script puts the correct modules into the initrd so that the root fs can be mounted, no matter what its fstype. Blue skies... Todd -- Todd Lyons -- MandrakeSoft, Inc. http://www.mandrakesoft.com/ UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn Cooker Version mandrake-release-9.1-0.1mdk Kernel 2.4.19-16mdk msg79103/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On 13 Oct 2002, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > Big? 800kb in compressed form. For a patch, that looks horribly big to me. And look at the code, it is not simply an addon module. It puts all sorts of things in the kernel. > Unstable?? Look here: Well, I had some fs corruption with XFS when pluggin the power. I do not care if big lab X claims it works perfectly. But if you really want to know why it is not in stock kernel, do not ask here, but on kernel-devel. Danny
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
El Dom 13 Oct 2002 20:22, David Walluck escribió: > Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and > Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can > access your root partition if you build your own kernel. I have been using XFS in the root partition with 8.2 (and now with 9.0) without problems. May be your initrd file has not the necessary modules? Regards.
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > Big? 800kb in compressed form. > Unstable?? Look here: > > "At the D0 experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory we > have a ~150 node cluster of desktop machines all using the SGI-patched > kernel. Every large disk (>40Gb) or disk array in the cluster uses XFS > including 4x640Gb disk servers and several 60-120Gb disks/arrays. > Originally we chose reiserfs as our journalling filesystem, however, > this was a disaster. We need to export these disks via NFS and this > seemed perpetually broken in 2.4 series kernels. We switched to XFS and > have been very happy. The only inconvenience is that it is not included > in the standard kernel. The SGI guys are very prompt in their support of > new kernels, but it is still an extra step which should not be > necessary." > > -- Bjarne XFS will be in the next stable kernel. XFS is considered big because 800K is too big to fit on a boot floppy along with the rest of the kernel. Besides, 800K *is* big compared to most modules. XFS itself is stable, but the XFS patch changes a lot of the kernel's internal structure. This is one reason why Linus did not want to accept it into the kernel until a later version. Beware of using XFS on your root partition. I have done this, and Mandrake tools do not properly load the XFS module so that you can access your root partition if you build your own kernel. I have reported this many times, and as far as I know it has never been looked into. I can't be the only one who has done this In any case, play it safe and use ext2 or ext3 for your root partition. -- Sincerely, David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> msg78861/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Big? 800kb in compressed form. Unstable?? Look here: "At the D0 experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory we have a ~150 node cluster of desktop machines all using the SGI-patched kernel. Every large disk (>40Gb) or disk array in the cluster uses XFS including 4x640Gb disk servers and several 60-120Gb disks/arrays. Originally we chose reiserfs as our journalling filesystem, however, this was a disaster. We need to export these disks via NFS and this seemed perpetually broken in 2.4 series kernels. We switched to XFS and have been very happy. The only inconvenience is that it is not included in the standard kernel. The SGI guys are very prompt in their support of new kernels, but it is still an extra step which should not be necessary." -- Bjarne On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 10:54, Danny Tholen wrote: > On Sunday 13 October 2002 10:16, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > > Why is XFS the only journaling FS that is not > > included in the main 2.4 tree, considering > > that Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, and > > JB Linux all have support for XFS? > Because, simply, XFS is a horrible big complex patch that possibly breaks many > things. And stock kernel should be as stable as possible. > > Danny >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Danny Tholen wrote: > On Sunday 13 October 2002 10:16, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > > Why is XFS the only journaling FS that is not > > included in the main 2.4 tree, considering > > that Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, and > > JB Linux all have support for XFS? > Because, simply, XFS is a horrible big complex patch that possibly breaks many > things. And stock kernel should be as stable as possible. > But, it has (IIRC) been merged into 2.5, I think around 2.5.40 Oh, and Redhat doesn't have XFS, and neither does Debian (AFAIK). Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Sunday 13 October 2002 10:16, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > Why is XFS the only journaling FS that is not > included in the main 2.4 tree, considering > that Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, and > JB Linux all have support for XFS? Because, simply, XFS is a horrible big complex patch that possibly breaks many things. And stock kernel should be as stable as possible. Danny
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Claudio wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > And Todd and I did fairly extensive testing and quota does indeed work in ext2/3. The limitation is a user cannot get a report on their current quota usage, but root can. Stew Benedict -- MandrakeSoft PPC FAQ: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ppcFAQ.php3 IRC: irc.openproject.net #cooker-ppc
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
For one, the XFS patches are rather non-invasive. Folks have argued on lkml for a long time that Linus doesn't integrate patches that are too invasive when quite the opposite is true -- he'd rather integrate invasive stuff to make patching the kernel up w/ less-invasive patches less difficult. Some very-invasive stuff will never get merged (OpenMOSIX, for instance). Also remember that JFS was't merged until 2.4.19, the very latest stable release of 2.4, and it's considered less stable than XFS. On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 04:16, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > Why is XFS the only journaling FS that is not > included in the main 2.4 tree, considering > that Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, and > JB Linux all have support for XFS? > > -- Bjarne > > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 19:52, Wes Kurdziolek wrote: > > XFS will most likely not be integrated into the 2.4 tree. > > > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:35, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > > > Does anybody know if XFS has been included > > > in 2.4.20-pre or 2.4.20-pre-ac ? > > > > > > Bjarne > > > > > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 18:04, Claudio wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > > > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > > > > > > > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > > > > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > > > > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > > > > > > > Claudio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Why is XFS the only journaling FS that is not included in the main 2.4 tree, considering that Mandrake, SuSE, Gentoo, Slackware, and JB Linux all have support for XFS? -- Bjarne On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 19:52, Wes Kurdziolek wrote: > XFS will most likely not be integrated into the 2.4 tree. > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:35, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > > Does anybody know if XFS has been included > > in 2.4.20-pre or 2.4.20-pre-ac ? > > > > Bjarne > > > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 18:04, Claudio wrote: > > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > > > > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > > > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > > > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > > > > > Claudio > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Buchan Milne uttered these words of wisdom: >On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > >> so how about ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer? >> and why? >> >> The advantages vs. disadvantages? >> > >That's something I would also want to hear opinions on ... > >Since we got ACL support for ext3, they are mostly similar in features, >except: >1)Intermezzo doens't work with XFS yet, but then again I haven't managed >to compile intersync ... >2)XFS has xfsdump, which keeps all metadata, including ACLs. But, since >amanda can't span tapes, this doesn't really help us, since our tapes are >smaller than the partitions we need ... >3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... >(ie from a windows box via samba). > >I have seen the odd file corruption in XFS when the power dies, usually >the kdmrc gets mangled if yuo have root or /usr on XFS and the power dies, >but if you have a UPS (which we do on our servers, but not on my home >machine), it shouldn't be a problem. > >I don't think there is much between them performance-wise. > >Buchan This looks more like a personal message, but since it's on cooker, I'll go ahead and add a comment. I've been using XFS since it became available in Mandrake and I've never been happier! I haven't tried ext3 (which maybe invalidates my opinion), but I know that SGI has been around for years and their product has had the time to mature. In other words, I've not had any problems with it and I have it on all partitions except /boot on all my linux boxes (4 including my laptop). Mike -- Michael Holt Banning, CA(o_ [EMAIL PROTECTED](o_ (o_ //\ www.holt-tech.net(/)_ (/)_ V_/_www.mandrake.com <
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
I thought quotas *did* work, but users couldn't get quota reports, only root. On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:04, Claudio wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > Claudio > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
XFS will most likely not be integrated into the 2.4 tree. On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 12:35, Bjarne Thomsen wrote: > Does anybody know if XFS has been included > in 2.4.20-pre or 2.4.20-pre-ac ? > > Bjarne > > On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 18:04, Claudio wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > > > Claudio > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
Does anybody know if XFS has been included in 2.4.20-pre or 2.4.20-pre-ac ? Bjarne On Sat, 2002-10-12 at 18:04, Claudio wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > > (ie from a windows box via samba). > > > > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this > problem since 9.0 beta 1... > If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! > > Claudio > > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > > 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... > (ie from a windows box via samba). > quota DOES NOT work on ext3 filesystem at the moment. I reported this problem since 9.0 beta 1... If you want to use quote, you MUST use XFS! Claudio
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Saturday 12 October 2002 07:44, Brent Hasty wrote: > so how about ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer? > and why? > I prefer ext3 because current XFS doesn't like preemptive kernel (available on mdk club now). Perhaps XFS from cvs is better. Danny
Re: [Cooker] ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer?
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Brent Hasty wrote: > so how about ext3 vs XFS wich would you prefer? > and why? > > The advantages vs. disadvantages? > That's something I would also want to hear opinions on ... Since we got ACL support for ext3, they are mostly similar in features, except: 1)Intermezzo doens't work with XFS yet, but then again I haven't managed to compile intersync ... 2)XFS has xfsdump, which keeps all metadata, including ACLs. But, since amanda can't span tapes, this doesn't really help us, since our tapes are smaller than the partitions we need ... 3)Quotas might work better in XFS, but I haven't tested that enough ... (ie from a windows box via samba). I have seen the odd file corruption in XFS when the power dies, usually the kdmrc gets mangled if yuo have root or /usr on XFS and the power dies, but if you have a UPS (which we do on our servers, but not on my home machine), it shouldn't be a problem. I don't think there is much between them performance-wise. Buchan -- |Registered Linux User #182071-| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] ext3 undelete tool? Sorry
Sorry about that guys, I guess I was being a little scared... This was the backup that died... (needed to desperately access it... oh well). I should know better, I'm usually the person to say go bugger off. Thanks For the help guys, NB On Tue, 2002-04-30 at 21:11, Leon Brooks wrote: > On Wednesday 01 May 2002 08:27, Ron Stodden wrote: > > Nelson Bartley wrote: > >> I REALLY desperately need to know how to undelete something under an ext3 > >> file system. > > > Never heard of restore from your most recent backup? > > You guys are all heart. Even though you are also technically correct. > > Nelson, make a copy of the entire partition, somewhere else, right now. It's > your only hope of recovery. Then use ext2 undelete and rescue tools on the > partition copy. You might be reduced to scanning the raw partition for your > email text and hoping it's more or less contiguous. > > When you next have a problem like this, please take it to MandrakeUser. Better > still, back up regularly. > > Cheers; Leon > > >
Re: [Cooker] ext3 undelete tool?
On Wednesday 01 May 2002 08:27, Ron Stodden wrote: > Nelson Bartley wrote: >> I REALLY desperately need to know how to undelete something under an ext3 >> file system. > Never heard of restore from your most recent backup? You guys are all heart. Even though you are also technically correct. Nelson, make a copy of the entire partition, somewhere else, right now. It's your only hope of recovery. Then use ext2 undelete and rescue tools on the partition copy. You might be reduced to scanning the raw partition for your email text and hoping it's more or less contiguous. When you next have a problem like this, please take it to MandrakeUser. Better still, back up regularly. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] ext3 undelete tool?
Nelson Bartley wrote: > > I REALLY desperately need to know how to undelete something under an ext3 file > system. I just accidentally deleted my mail files (over 500MB of e-mail) off > my network drive and I desperately need to get it back. As I have access to > the server, I'm hoping there is a restore/undelete tool that can be used on > that directory. Never heard of restore from your most recent backup? -- Ron. [au]
Re: [Cooker] ext3 not found in stage1.log
On Monday 10 December 2001 1:54 pm, Pixel wrote: > > maybe? hd installs are hard to test :-/ OK - I buy that, I won't report more on that as long as it is stable. guran -- Mandrake Linux 8.2 Cooker kernel-2.4.16.6mdk-1-1mdk version:2001:12:08:18:54
Re: [Cooker] ext3 not found in stage1.log
Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here is the report: > > * err, fstab and partition table do not agree for hda9 type: ext3 vs ext2 > > Pixel, could this error come from the fact that hda9 was mounted > ext2 during stage1, although it's actually ext3? It would > surprise me but..? maybe? hd installs are hard to test :-/
Re: [Cooker] ext3 not found in stage1.log
guran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi > > VERSION:(rsync ftp.sunet.se) > Mandrake Linux Cooker-i586 20011208 18:54 > > This is from stage1.log: Finally this "stage1.log" is useful :-)). > * guessing type of /dev/hda1 > * guessing type of /dev/hda5 > * guessing type of /dev/hda6 > * guessing type of /dev/hda7 > * guessing type of /dev/hda8 > * guessing type of /dev/hda9 > * mounting /dev/hda9 on /tmp/hdimage as type ext2 > * Total Memory: 256 Mbytes > * trying to load /tmp/image/Mandrake/base/mdkinst_stage2.bz2 as a ramdisk > * mounting /dev/ram3 on /tmp/stage2 as type ext2 Yes we don't have ext3 driver in stage1, but it should not be needed, normally. > But this is from report.bug (earlier than stage1.log): Euh ? report.bug should contain stage1.log. > <6>Journalled Block Device driver loaded > <6>kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds > <6>EXT3 FS 2.4-0.9.15, 06 Nov 2001 on ide0(3,8), internal journal > <6>EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. > <6>kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds > <6>EXT3 FS 2.4-0.9.15, 06 Nov 2001 on ide0(3,6), internal journal > <6>EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. > <6>kjournald starting. Commit interval 5 seconds > <6>EXT3 FS 2.4-0.9.15, 06 Nov 2001 on ide0(3,7), internal journal > <6>EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. > ... > > Here is the report: > * err, fstab and partition table do not agree for hda9 type: ext3 vs ext2 Pixel, could this error come from the fact that hda9 was mounted ext2 during stage1, although it's actually ext3? It would surprise me but..? -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] ext3 support in vanilla kernel
> "jorg" == Jorg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: jorg> So are we gonna see mt kernels instead of ac kernels? Not, as linus will begin to work only in 2.5. i.e. form 2.4.15 (or prehaps 2.4.16), the _official_ kernels are going to came from Marcelo tossati, the same way than now 2.2 kernels came from Alan Cox. Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy
RE: [Cooker] ext3 support in vanilla kernel
So are we gonna see mt kernels instead of ac kernels? Jorg -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Juan Quintela Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:58 AM To: Fabrice FACORAT Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Cooker] ext3 support in vanilla kernel >>>>> "fabrice" == Fabrice FACORAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: fabrice> Linux 2.4.15-pre2 is out and in the changelog we can notice this : fabrice> - Andrew Morton: ext3 merge fabrice> As mdk use -ac kernel, I'm willing to see 2.4.145-acx out as Alan Cox fabrice> plan to use Andrea VM. Alan is syncing with 2.4.14 and he will use Andrea VM. Marcelo Tossati will be the maintainer of 2.4.x series of the kernel for the time being. Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy
Re: [Cooker] ext3 support in vanilla kernel
> "fabrice" == Fabrice FACORAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: fabrice> Linux 2.4.15-pre2 is out and in the changelog we can notice this : fabrice> - Andrew Morton: ext3 merge fabrice> As mdk use -ac kernel, I'm willing to see 2.4.145-acx out as Alan Cox fabrice> plan to use Andrea VM. Alan is syncing with 2.4.14 and he will use Andrea VM. Marcelo Tossati will be the maintainer of 2.4.x series of the kernel for the time being. Later, Juan. -- In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they are different -- Larry McVoy
Re: [Cooker] ext3 on rootfs -- anything?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I reported here a week or two ago about not being able to use ext3 for > the root filesystem due to ext2 being static and being tried before > ext3 when mounting root. > > I offered 2 solutions. Has anything been implemented? What are you > going to tell people who try to use ext3 for their root filesystem in > the 8.1 release? Supported since mkinitrd-3.1.6-1mdk. Please test. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] ext3 on rootfs -- anything?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I offered 2 solutions. Has anything been implemented? What are you > going to tell people who try to use ext3 for their root filesystem in > the 8.1 release? latest mkinitrd should implement it we working on that..
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Arthur H. Johnson II wrote: > No. > > On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Reggie Burnett wrote: > > > I am having trouble booting beta 2 using 2.4 kernel. If I include the 2.2 > > kernel, does it support ext3? Except grabbing 2.2 kernel from kernel.org and then apply older ext3 patches perhaps. Abel
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Thursday 30 August 2001 03:09 pm, you wrote: > Thanks, but I was specifically asking if the 2.2 kernel supported ext3. > Are you running the 2.2 kernel? > Oops... sorry, No ;-) running 2.4 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Sergio Korlowsky > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Cooker] ext3 > > On Thursday 30 August 2001 02:37 pm, you wrote: > > I am having trouble booting beta 2 using 2.4 kernel. If I include the > > 2.2 kernel, does it support ext3? > > > > Reggie > > I am running beta2 and have three ext3 partitions... / /usr and /var > no problems here. > > sk -- SedeComp Comunicaciones Internet Solutions MandrakeSoft's VAR and System Integrator mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP key available on:http://www.keyserver.net/en/ |--| Current Linux kernel 2.4.8-12mdkenterprise uptime: 1 hour 35 minutes.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
No. On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Reggie Burnett wrote: > I am having trouble booting beta 2 using 2.4 kernel. If I include the 2.2 > kernel, does it support ext3? > > Reggie > > -- Arthur H. Johnson II [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Linux Box http://www.linuxbox.nu
RE: [Cooker] ext3 does not work on rootfs
> My recollection from my last job (unemployed for the time being :-), > where I was building kernels with ext3 is correct. > > If you have a kernel with ext2 linked statically and ext3 as a module, > even if you load the ext3 module in the initrd, the filesystem will > still be mounted with the ext2 driver. > > This is because when the kernel tries to mount the root filesystem, it > goes through it's list of filesystem drivers and uses the first one > that recognizes the filesystem. Statically linked drivers are tried > before modular loaded drivers. Because the disk format of ext2 and > ext3 are the same, ext2 will successfully mount the root filesystem > before ext3 gets a try. > > There are two possible solutions to this problem. The kernels that I > was building used both. :-) The first solution is to link ext2 > dynamically (modular) and load it in the initrd on systems where the > root filesystem is ext2 (no journal). If you want the root filesystem > mounted using the journal (ext3) then the initrd should load the ext3 > module (before the ext2 module if you wish to load it in the initrd, > which is really not necessary). The initrd should be a ROMFS > filesystme with the romfs driver statically linked into the kernel. > > The other solution is to use one of the following patches: > > http://web.gnu.walfield.org/mail-archive/linux-fsdevel/2000- > February/0148.html > http://web.gnu.walfield.org/mail-archive/linux-fsdevel/2000- > February/0144.html > > I think I personally like the first one even though I used the second > one in my kernels when I worked with Peter. > I prefer the second (may be because I am used to it since SVR4). Mandrake, what would you speak up? :-) -andrej
Re: [Cooker] EXT3 missing modules
I was under the impression somehow that he planned on trying back the 2.4 after install, which would be very nasty switching in reiser, esp if diff progs and libs. I should go reboot (to test my aurora patch)
Re: [Cooker] ext3 for root filesystem?
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > If I make a journal on my rootfs (tune2fs -j ...) and set my root > filesystem in /etc/fstab to ext3, will the kernel installation > (specifically initrd creation) be smart enough to put the ext3.o > module into the initrd? > > Will the kernel try the modular ext3 driver before the statically > linked ext2 driver (which will of course mount an ext3 filesystem)? AFAIK the mkinitrd script checks /etc/fstab only for file systems -- e.g. if you have put reiserfs there then initrd will contain reiserfs.o, and so on... Abel
Re: [Cooker] ext3 for root filesystem?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello all, > > If I make a journal on my rootfs (tune2fs -j ...) and set my root > filesystem in /etc/fstab to ext3, will the kernel installation > (specifically initrd creation) be smart enough to put the ext3.o > module into the initrd? It's entirely untested, but it's supported ;-). Basically mkinitrd parses your /etc/fstab and will take the needed filesystem for the root device. > Will the kernel try the modular ext3 driver before the statically > linked ext2 driver (which will of course mount an ext3 filesystem)? You need to try! :-) Maybe the remount? Ok, please test and report to us! -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] ext3 for root filesystem?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello all, > > If I make a journal on my rootfs (tune2fs -j ...) and set my root > filesystem in /etc/fstab to ext3, will the kernel installation > (specifically initrd creation) be smart enough to put the ext3.o > module into the initrd? yes. > Will the kernel try the modular ext3 driver before the statically > linked ext2 driver (which will of course mount an ext3 filesystem)? if i understand correctly he will mount first in ext2 and after remounting in ext3.
Re: [Cooker] EXT3 missing modules
Blue Lizard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > 1- 2.2.14 > > 2- ext3 > > > > find the problem ;p. > Sorry to barge in here, but in case he didnt understand (considering he > tried it in the first place), 2.2 and Journalised fs aren't going to > coexist in an install. > ;) Reiserfs. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] EXT3 missing modules
Le Mardi 14 Août 2001 02:00, vous avez écrit : > On 13 Aug 2001 17:27:55 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > Michel PRILLOT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > hello, > > > > > > Using "network.img-2.2.14BADZ2" (while it's the only one usable > > > for booting on Compaq Proliant 3000 and 1850R), I got the following: > > > > > > * formatting device ida/c0d0p2 (type Journalised FS: ext3) > > > > 1- 2.2.14 > > 2- ext3 > > > > find the problem ;p. > > Sorry to barge in here, but in case he didnt understand (considering he > tried it in the first place), 2.2 and Journalised fs aren't going to > coexist in an install. > ;) Immediatly anderstand... , and of course 2.2 are realy not supporting Journalised.. much worse I was unable to install cooker beta 1 on any of my servers. (Proliant 3000 & 1850R) while all others boot images fails > > -- > > Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/ -- --- The box said "Need Windows 95 or better", so I installed Linux
Re: [Cooker] EXT3 missing modules
On 13 Aug 2001 17:27:55 +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > Michel PRILLOT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > hello, > > > > Using "network.img-2.2.14BADZ2" (while it's the only one usable > > for booting on Compaq Proliant 3000 and 1850R), I got the following: > > > > * formatting device ida/c0d0p2 (type Journalised FS: ext3) > > 1- 2.2.14 > 2- ext3 > > find the problem ;p. Sorry to barge in here, but in case he didnt understand (considering he tried it in the first place), 2.2 and Journalised fs aren't going to coexist in an install. ;) > > > -- > Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/ >
Re: [Cooker] EXT3 missing modules
Michel PRILLOT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > hello, > > Using "network.img-2.2.14BADZ2" (while it's the only one usable > for booting on Compaq Proliant 3000 and 1850R), I got the following: > > * formatting device ida/c0d0p2 (type Journalised FS: ext3) 1- 2.2.14 2- ext3 find the problem ;p. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] ext3 - pbs
On Monday 06 August 2001 02:15, guran wrote: > > Well, at this instant I have not very much more to say, I will test it > again when I come back from my hollydays. > Damn, I am to interested why I don't understand, so here is from that installation that went OK, report.bug: * starting step `doPartitionDisks' * getFile XXX: * calling umount(/tmp/hdimage) * warning: bad magic number at /usr/bin/perl-install/partition_table_empty.pm line 31. * found a dos partition table on /dev/hda at sector 0 * warning: bad magic number at /usr/bin/perl-install/partition_table_empty.pm line 31. * found a dos partition table on /dev/hdb at sector 0 * test_for_bad_drives(/dev/hda) * test_for_bad_drives(/dev/hdb) * mounting hda10 on /tmp/hdimage as type ext2 * running: fsck.ext2 -a /dev/hda10 /dev/hda10: clean, 6239/798112 files, 771889/1594443 blocks * calling mount(/dev/hda10, /tmp/hdimage, ext2, -1058209792, ) * step `doPartitionDisks' finished * starting step `formatPartitions' * formatting device hda5 (type Linux swap) * Setting up swapspace on /dev/hda5 version 1, size = 534605824 bytes * swapon called with hda5 * formatting device hda9 (type ext3) * running: mke2fs -j /dev/hda9 mke2fs 1.21, 15-Jun-2001 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 652800 inodes, 1303265 blocks 65163 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 40 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16320 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736 Writing inode tables: 0/40. 1/40. 2/40. 3/40. 4/40. 5/40. 6/40. 7/40. 8/40. 9/40.10/ 40.1 1/40.12/40.13/40.14/40.15/40.16/40.1
Re: [Cooker] ext3 - pbs
On Monday 06 August 2001 02:15, guran wrote: > > Well, at this instant I have not very much more to say, I will test it > again when I come back from my hollydays. > Damn, I am to interested why I don't understand, so here is from that installation that went OK, report.bug: * starting step `doPartitionDisks' * getFile XXX: * calling umount(/tmp/hdimage) * warning: bad magic number at /usr/bin/perl-install/partition_table_empty.pm line 31. * found a dos partition table on /dev/hda at sector 0 * warning: bad magic number at /usr/bin/perl-install/partition_table_empty.pm line 31. * found a dos partition table on /dev/hdb at sector 0 * test_for_bad_drives(/dev/hda) * test_for_bad_drives(/dev/hdb) * mounting hda10 on /tmp/hdimage as type ext2 * running: fsck.ext2 -a /dev/hda10 /dev/hda10: clean, 6239/798112 files, 771889/1594443 blocks * calling mount(/dev/hda10, /tmp/hdimage, ext2, -1058209792, ) * step `doPartitionDisks' finished * starting step `formatPartitions' * formatting device hda5 (type Linux swap) * Setting up swapspace on /dev/hda5 version 1, size = 534605824 bytes * swapon called with hda5 * formatting device hda9 (type ext3) * running: mke2fs -j /dev/hda9 mke2fs 1.21, 15-Jun-2001 for EXT2 FS 0.5b, 95/08/09 Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 652800 inodes, 1303265 blocks 65163 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 40 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 16320 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736 Writing inode tables: 0/40. 1/40. 2/40. 3/40. 4/40. 5/40. 6/40. 7/40. 8/40. 9/40.10/ 40.1 1/40.12/40.13/40.14/40.15/40.16/40.1
Re: [Cooker] ext3 - pbs
On Monday 06 August 2001 01:17, Pixel wrote: > > diskdrake doesn't show "Type" when the partition is mounted (or at least it > shouldn't) Well, at this instant I have not very much more to say, I will test it again when I come back from my hollydays. bye guran -- Free Dmitriy Sklyarov The patent laws of USA are stupid, they have patented some of our genes.
Re: [Cooker] ext3 - pbs
guran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > done during installation. If Type is the very first one, then it ought to be > possible to lock that one so newbies don't repeat my first mistake. I mounted > my partition and then remembered that I should test ext3 and tried Type but ?? diskdrake doesn't show "Type" when the partition is mounted (or at least it shouldn't)
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Submitted 18-Nov-00 by James A. Sutherland: > No; they do not do a simple partition copy. Instead, they copy the FILES in the > partition. They also make appropriate SID changes for NTFS, and defragment > (IIRC). Ghost does *not* have support for *any* Linux filesystem. It does compression on the fly, which is how one can fit a 1.6G partition's image into a .5 GB partition. Perhaps for other Windows filesystems it can do files, but at least last time I tried Ghost (ca. 9 months ago) there was no real support for other filesystems and for them it did the equivalent of: dd if=/dev/hdb2 | gzip > disk.img -- Anton GrahamGPG ID: 0x18F78541 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RSA key available upon request "All say, 'How hard it is that we have to die' -- a strange complaint to come from the mouths of people who have had to live." -- Mark Twain
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Alexander Skwar wrote: > So sprach James A. Sutherland am Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 09:38:54PM +: > > No; they do not do a simple partition copy. Instead, they copy the FILES in the > > partition. They also make appropriate SID changes for NTFS, and defragment > > (IIRC). > > Okay, if they do that, than they need support for an fs. But I would very > much wonder if they ever support reiserfs, as it is really tied to the linux > kernel. But time will prove me wrong, I hope. The same could be said of ext2, but it was supported by Partition Magic etc... James.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Alexander Skwar wrote: > So sprach James A. Sutherland am Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 09:38:54PM +: > > No; they do not do a simple partition copy. Instead, they copy the FILES in the > > partition. They also make appropriate SID changes for NTFS, and defragment > > (IIRC). > > Okay, if they do that, than they need support for an fs. But I would very > much wonder if they ever support reiserfs, as it is really tied to the linux > kernel. But time will prove me wrong, I hope. > > Alexander Skwar > -- > How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) > Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx > GnuPG ID: 59F6A6F5 FP: DC8AFA56C492EE6058D5 BAA62EEE3AD559F6A6F5 > ICQ:7328191 Uptime: 2 hours 51 minutes I have the feeling I saw a tool to resize partitions in the cooker ? if so it could be put on a 1 floppy kernel and be used to resize partition as well as copy them... Any volunteers? Cheers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] ext3
So sprach James A. Sutherland am Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 09:38:54PM +: > No; they do not do a simple partition copy. Instead, they copy the FILES in the > partition. They also make appropriate SID changes for NTFS, and defragment > (IIRC). Okay, if they do that, than they need support for an fs. But I would very much wonder if they ever support reiserfs, as it is really tied to the linux kernel. But time will prove me wrong, I hope. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx GnuPG ID: 59F6A6F5 FP: DC8AFA56C492EE6058D5 BAA62EEE3AD559F6A6F5 ICQ:7328191 Uptime: 2 hours 51 minutes
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, Alexander Skwar wrote: > So sprach xaos am Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 02:36:13PM -0500: > > On Saturday 18 November 2000 07:56, some strange person did etch this in > > > Sorry, but why do Drive Image and Ghost need support for a particular fs? > > because they're dos-based programs. > > Well, yeah, but still: What do they need support for? If they can read the > disk, *DISK* (I'm not talking about the *FS* here) why should they need > support for a fs? As long as they can read the disk, they can do all they > need, even compression. No; they do not do a simple partition copy. Instead, they copy the FILES in the partition. They also make appropriate SID changes for NTFS, and defragment (IIRC). That's how you can copy a 2Gb NTFS partition from one machine into a 5Gb partition on another directly. A simple byte-by-byte copy wouldn't do that. James.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
So sprach xaos am Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 02:36:13PM -0500: > On Saturday 18 November 2000 07:56, some strange person did etch this in > > Sorry, but why do Drive Image and Ghost need support for a particular fs? > because they're dos-based programs. Well, yeah, but still: What do they need support for? If they can read the disk, *DISK* (I'm not talking about the *FS* here) why should they need support for a fs? As long as they can read the disk, they can do all they need, even compression. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx GnuPG ID: 59F6A6F5 FP: DC8AFA56C492EE6058D5 BAA62EEE3AD559F6A6F5 ICQ:7328191 Uptime: 2 hours 0 minutes
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Saturday 18 November 2000 07:56, some strange person did etch this in stone: > Sorry, but why do Drive Image and Ghost need support for a particular fs? because they're dos-based programs. -x. -- "Death is merciful, for there is no return therefrom, but for him who has come back out of the nethermost chambers of night, haggard and knowing, peace rests nevermore" - Howard Phillips Lovecraft ICQ 4841244
Re: [Cooker] ext3
So sprach Daniel Woods am Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:42:22AM -0700: > Currently Partition Magic, Drive Image, and Ghost have support for ext2. Sorry, but why do Drive Image and Ghost need support for a particular fs? Don't they just basically do a a dd if=/dev/hda of=file? I can see why Partition Magic needs support (for resizing partitions) but the others? And as far as resizing is concerned, there's resize_reiserfs, you then just need to make the partition smaller. > Does anyone know if they will likely support ext3 before reiserfs ? > > To me this is a good reason to make ext3 available to us in the next release. Well, or to drop ext3 completely if there'S no support from these costly tools. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx GnuPG ID: 59F6A6F5 FP: DC8AFA56C492EE6058D5 BAA62EEE3AD559F6A6F5 ICQ:7328191 Uptime: 1 day 16 hours 11 minutes
Re: [Cooker] ext3
So sprach Ray am Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 08:12:22AM +: > Is ext3 avalible during install on cooker and 7.2 or do you have to use ext2 ext3 is not available at all on Mdk. But if you're installing (ie. wiping your disks) you can choose reiserfs. Alexander Skwar -- How to quote: http://learn.to/quote (german) http://quote.6x.to (english) Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx GnuPG ID: 59F6A6F5 FP: DC8AFA56C492EE6058D5 BAA62EEE3AD559F6A6F5 ICQ:7328191 Uptime: 1 day 16 hours 10 minutes
Re: [Cooker] ext3
> > Is ext3 avalible during install on cooker and 7.2 or do you have to use ext2 > > then add ext3? Also what is involved with converting ext2 to ext3 partitions? > > ext3 is not available yet. Currently Partition Magic, Drive Image, and Ghost have support for ext2. Does anyone know if they will likely support ext3 before reiserfs ? To me this is a good reason to make ext3 available to us in the next release. Thanks... Dan.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is ext3 avalible during install on cooker and 7.2 or do you have to use ext2 > then add ext3? Also what is involved with converting ext2 to ext3 partitions? ext3 is not available yet. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Antony Suter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Xavier, on the small chance that you are patching/compiling ReiserFS yourself > you should investigate further. actually there is AK patches for knfsd i have to check, to deal correctly with the nfs lock on reiserfs partitions. -- MandrakeSoft Inchttp://www.mandrakesoft.com San-Francisco, CA USA --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Xavier Bertou wrote: > > > Actually i don't plan to integrate the ext3 in our kernel not is > > stable or not but ReiserFS is much more tested, work great on server > > and we didn't have any bug reports. We still keep our eyes on the > > Journalised FS like Ext3, JFS, XFS for the future. > > Ok, so here is a bug report: 250 Go hardware RAID exported by NFS, a > client writing on the RAID through NFS, push reset on the NFS server. I > did it twice and each time I had corrupted files full of \0. The machines > are running Mandrake 7.1b. > Ext3 would really be nice (even if it is not proposed to the end user, > but to have it as a module) for its ability to go back to ext2. It my understanding from ReiserFS documentation that there is an option setable at compile time which affects NFS operation. Due to NFS making a buggy assumption about directory handles or something like that. The option must be set correctly if you export a ReiserFS partition with NFS. Xavier, on the small chance that you are patching/compiling ReiserFS yourself you should investigate further. Otherwise, MandrakeSoft should check for this option being set correctly. -- - Antony Suter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Examiner" openpgp:71ADFC87 - "And how do you store the nuclear equivalent of the universal solvent?"
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Andreas Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Personnaly, I had some tests of ReiserFS on a hardware RAID system > > ReiserFs and RAID makes problems. It is a known problem. Read > the reiserfs mailing list for more information. I dunno if it's > fixed now or not. no problem with raid0 and raid1. raid has been fixed on 2.4.0-testX but not on 2.2.x
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Xavier Bertou wrote: > Well, I know people who were using ReiserFS for a big database and went > back to ext2 and fscks because they had some problems (don't know more Yeah, I hope they reportet all problems to the reiserfs team. And besides, I know serveral web servers and db servers running fine with reiserfs. So what? > details). I heard Redhat doesn't plan to ship ReiserFS in 7.0 because it > is not stable enough. This Red Hat excuse it's not stable enough stinks! They have some 'political' motivations for refusing to support reiserfs. But it realy doesn't matter, because I don't give a damn about what they do. > Personnaly, I had some tests of ReiserFS on a hardware RAID system ReiserFs and RAID makes problems. It is a known problem. Read the reiserfs mailing list for more information. I dunno if it's fixed now or not. Cheers, A.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:46:42PM +0200, Thierry Vignaud wrote: > what's more, ext3 only exists for 2.2.x for the moment (it would take > some time to port it to 2.4.x). Linux kernels are 2.2.x for the moment... > At least, jfs exists for both 2.2.x and 2.4.0-testX. > and ext3 is half as slow as ext2 ... on 2.2.x, reiserfs is faster than ext2 > (they've quite the same speed on 2.4.0-testX) Sometime you don't need speed, you just need safety.
Re: [Cooker] ext3
On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 07:24:42AM -0700, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > > ReiserFS doesn't seem to be as stable as it is claimed, > > What is your definition of not stable ? Well, I know people who were using ReiserFS for a big database and went back to ext2 and fscks because they had some problems (don't know more details). I heard Redhat doesn't plan to ship ReiserFS in 7.0 because it is not stable enough. Personnaly, I had some tests of ReiserFS on a hardware RAID system exported by NFS and had a lot of problems. One of them being having files full with \0 on a sudden death of the NFS server. I've been using ext3 for about a year and never had any problem... > Actually i don't plan to integrate the ext3 in our kernel not is > stable or not but ReiserFS is much more tested, work great on server > and we didn't have any bug reports. We still keep our eyes on the > Journalised FS like Ext3, JFS, XFS for the future. Ok, so here is a bug report: 250 Go hardware RAID exported by NFS, a client writing on the RAID through NFS, push reset on the NFS server. I did it twice and each time I had corrupted files full of \0. The machines are running Mandrake 7.1b. Ext3 would really be nice (even if it is not proposed to the end user, but to have it as a module) for its ability to go back to ext2. -- Xavier
RE: [Cooker] ext3
> > Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Is there any chance the ext3 code could be integrated > into Mandrake's > > > > kernels ? ReiserFS doesn't seem to be as stable as it > is claimed, > > > > > > What is your definition of not stable ? > Well I'll mess in the discussion if you don't mind. Reiser looks quite > tough for now. However it has not a wide distribution as > ext2. Besides, > those who are making it clearly state that there are problems. And I > believe they have good reasons to say it. They are the most interested > party in this thing. Personally, I had no problems with Reiser's > partitions, but I can't say the same of the tools. Things there are > still green somehow. If you get a crash you may get some > trouble to get > things back. So in terms of stability Reiser is still under question. > You may use it on a /usr that you don't mind to reinstall. But, at the > moment, I would not risk to store critical information in such > partitions. Reiser still has some implementations problems with NFS and SMP. For instance, when exporting a reiser filesystem to a Solaris box via NFS, several instances of Solaris complaining that a paticular file (that was indeed a text file) was a directory. And this wasn't consistent, you'd have the Sun box writing to this log file for days, then suddenly stop, with the complaint that it was trying to write to a directory. After changing both exported reiser filesystems back to ext2, those problems went away. But the other partitions (/usr /var etc) are still reiser. The machine (A DUAL 550 PIII with 512Megs of ram, running SuSE 6.4) will ocassionally "lose" directories on the reiser partitions. You can be logged in locally, cd to /usr/local/httpd for instance, do an "ls" and that process will hang for almost an hour before returning the directory listing. Then it will be fine for days, only to do it again elsewhere. It's very weird. While I've not lost any data on a reiser FS, I also cannot justify placing it back onto our production machines until these problems are resolved. Which sucks, since doing a fsck on the 120 GIGs that this machine exports takes WTFL! (Waaay too freakin long!) -- Don Krause [EMAIL PROTECTED] Systems Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED] Optivus Technology, Inc. (909) 799-8327 "Splitting Atoms.. Saving Lives!"http://www.optivus.com
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Thierry Vignaud wrote: > > Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is there any chance the ext3 code could be integrated into Mandrake's > > > kernels ? ReiserFS doesn't seem to be as stable as it is claimed, > > > > What is your definition of not stable ? Well I'll mess in the discussion if you don't mind. Reiser looks quite tough for now. However it has not a wide distribution as ext2. Besides, those who are making it clearly state that there are problems. And I believe they have good reasons to say it. They are the most interested party in this thing. Personally, I had no problems with Reiser's partitions, but I can't say the same of the tools. Things there are still green somehow. If you get a crash you may get some trouble to get things back. So in terms of stability Reiser is still under question. You may use it on a /usr that you don't mind to reinstall. But, at the moment, I would not risk to store critical information in such partitions. > > > > > and being able to remount an ext3 fs as an ext2 fs is a very > > > valuable advantage. Are there some difficulties providing ext3 with > > > next Mandrake's kernels (I remember a year ago there were conflicts > > > beetwen ReiserFS and ext3 but I guess ReiserFS code has been cleaned > > > since that time) ? > > > > Actually i don't plan to integrate the ext3 in our kernel not is > > stable or not but ReiserFS is much more tested, work great on server > > and we didn't have any bug reports. We still keep our eyes on the > > Journalised FS like Ext3, JFS, XFS for the future. > > what's more, ext3 only exists for 2.2.x for the moment (it would take > some time to port it to 2.4.x). > At least, jfs exists for both 2.2.x and 2.4.0-testX. > and ext3 is half as slow as ext2 ... on 2.2.x, reiserfs is faster than ext2 > (they've quite the same speed on 2.4.0-testX) > > -- > T'as jamais entendu parler des bains turcs? (c) Jean-Loup
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Is there any chance the ext3 code could be integrated into Mandrake's > > kernels ? ReiserFS doesn't seem to be as stable as it is claimed, > > What is your definition of not stable ? > > > and being able to remount an ext3 fs as an ext2 fs is a very > > valuable advantage. Are there some difficulties providing ext3 with > > next Mandrake's kernels (I remember a year ago there were conflicts > > beetwen ReiserFS and ext3 but I guess ReiserFS code has been cleaned > > since that time) ? > > Actually i don't plan to integrate the ext3 in our kernel not is > stable or not but ReiserFS is much more tested, work great on server > and we didn't have any bug reports. We still keep our eyes on the > Journalised FS like Ext3, JFS, XFS for the future. what's more, ext3 only exists for 2.2.x for the moment (it would take some time to port it to 2.4.x). At least, jfs exists for both 2.2.x and 2.4.0-testX. and ext3 is half as slow as ext2 ... on 2.2.x, reiserfs is faster than ext2 (they've quite the same speed on 2.4.0-testX) -- T'as jamais entendu parler des bains turcs? (c) Jean-Loup
Re: [Cooker] ext3
Xavier Bertou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi... > Is there any chance the ext3 code could be integrated into Mandrake's > kernels ? ReiserFS doesn't seem to be as stable as it is claimed, What is your definition of not stable ? > and being able to remount an ext3 fs as an ext2 fs is a very > valuable advantage. Are there some difficulties providing ext3 with > next Mandrake's kernels (I remember a year ago there were conflicts > beetwen ReiserFS and ext3 but I guess ReiserFS code has been cleaned > since that time) ? Actually i don't plan to integrate the ext3 in our kernel not is stable or not but ReiserFS is much more tested, work great on server and we didn't have any bug reports. We still keep our eyes on the Journalised FS like Ext3, JFS, XFS for the future. -- MandrakeSoft Inchttp://www.mandrakesoft.com San-Francisco, CA USA --Chmouel
