Re: ext3 mount failing due to bad superblock.
If you have your original debian net-inst dvd, it's probably time to
put the dvd into the drive then reboot the computer into rescue mode.
Then run fsck.ext4 -c /dev/sda1 enter and watch the fun. This will
use badblocks nondestructively and set off a repair operation which
should end up with you having all of your data recovered. Figure you
have a bad hard drive on its last legs and backup what you can for a
later and better install on a new hard drive would be what I would do in
your situation. Once the drive is alive again, you may want to install
and run smartd-utils on it and check those log files since they'll
provide warnings. If you can get smartd-utils to e-mail you so much the
better.
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013, darkestkhan wrote:
I created ext3 on sda1 (using mke2fs -j) and it worked for last 20 days.
But after tiday reboot it stopped working - if it would be bad entry in fstab
I would still be able to mount it by hand, but I can't. I have some data
on it that I would rather not lose (I don't have enough space to make backups
of everything). Here is dmesg | tail output:
[ 500.130158] EXT4-fs (sda1): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem
Note that I get the same error no matter if use mount -t ext{2,3,4}
Output of fsck:
fsck from util-linux 2.20.1
e2fsck 1.42.8 (20-Jun-2013)
ext2fs_open2: Bad magic number in super-block
fsck.ext3: Superblock invalid, trying backup blocks...
fsck.ext3: Bad magic number in super-block while trying to open /dev/sda1
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2
filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2
filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock
is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock:
e2fsck -b 8193 device
Is there some way to recover filesystem (or at least data contained in it)?
darkestkhan
--
May the source be with you.
---
jude jdash...@shellworld.net
Avoid the Gates Of Hell, use Linux!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/alpine.bsf.2.01.1311090342530.51...@freire1.furyyjbeyq.arg
Re: ext3 mount failing due to bad superblock.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Jude DaShiell jdash...@shellworld.net wrote: If you have your original debian net-inst dvd, it's probably time to put the dvd into the drive then reboot the computer into rescue mode. Funny thing (actually not so) - my optic drive is dead. But why do I have to reboot into recovery mode? System itself works correctly - /boot is on sda2 and everything else is on LVM at sda3. (Windows 7 was on sda1 but it died due to... lack of space; srlsy - it started taking full 30GB of disk space after all updates). Then run fsck.ext4 -c /dev/sda1 enter and watch the fun. This will use badblocks nondestructively and set off a repair operation which should end up with you having all of your data recovered. Running this in recovery mode gets me the same message as running it normally (as it should - after all sda1 is not mounted) which is the same as my original mail. I also tried all possible combinations of e2fsck -b superblock - result is the same. -- darkestkhan -- Feel free to CC me. jid: darkestk...@gmail.com May The Source be with You. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cacrpbmhg4abjwofoml14hj_jb5t6y3jxd8gyksrqj91n92i...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ext3 mount failing due to bad superblock.
On 2013-11-09, darkestkhan darkestk...@gmail.com wrote: I created ext3 on sda1 (using mke2fs -j) and it worked for last 20 days. But after tiday reboot it stopped working - if it would be bad entry in fstab I would still be able to mount it by hand, but I can't. I have some data on it that I would rather not lose (I don't have enough space to make backups of everything). Here is dmesg | tail output: [ 500.130158] EXT4-fs (sda1): VFS: Can't find ext4 filesystem Is this of any help? http://linuxexpresso.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/repair-a-broken-ext4-superblock-in-ubuntu/ Summary: Says to do: mke2fs -n /dev/sda1 to discover where the superblock backups are stored then to replace the bad superblock e2fsck -b block_number /dev/sda1 'block_number' being the first backup block number in the mke2fs -n output. Excuse me if this is all off the mark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/slrnl7s23f.22t.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: ext3 mount failing due to bad superblock.
On 11/09/2013 04:09 AM, darkestkhan wrote: Funny thing (actually not so) - my optic drive is dead. But why do I have to reboot into recovery mode? System itself works correctly - /boot is on sda2 and everything else is on LVM at sda3 If I understand you correctly that you can boot and use your system without using the affected drive, then you don't need to boot from alternate media to troubleshoot the filesystem; but I would still recommend it (can you boot from a USB flash drive?). If you must boot from the installed distro, it might be better to boot in single-user (recovery) mode. The reason for this is that most distributions are configured to automatically access drives and filesystems, if only to probe them to determine what filesystems are available. In general, when troubleshooting filesystems and hard drives, it's best only to access them in a very controlled way. But please consider using a live boot distribution that is specifically tailored for this kind of work, such as parted magic, system rescue cd, etc. You haven't given enough information, so it's hard to say for sure what is the problem, forcing us to speculate heavily. You should definitely check the SMART data on the drive (use smartmontools package) to determine the status of the drive hardware. The output of dumpe2fs will be helpful. Also check your _entire_ kernel log, looking for any ATA or other errors that would indicate drive/controller failures, as well as filesystem messages. Nonetheless, there are 3 main possibilities: A. hardware failure: your drive is hosed; there are a number of sub-possibilities here: controller, cable, drive's controller card, drive platter surface, drive head, etc. B. software failure: the drive is working fine but somehow the data on it became corrupted, either due to a bug in the filesystem software, through a user-induced error such as writing to /dev/sdX, system crash, or some other possibilities. C. The filesystem is fine but you aren't mounting it correctly. Are you sure that you created an ext* filesystem and not some other kind? Try using mount without -t. Are you sure that you're mounting the right device file? The right partition? You will treat the A and B cases differently: if it's (A), I recommend *against* trying to recover any data in-place as has been suggested in some other posts here. Running fsck on a dying drive can make the situation worse (if you do it anyhow, try using the -c option as suggested elsewhere). You should rather make an image of the drive; you need some spare space on which to make the image. You can use something as simple as dd, but if you encounter hardware errors while reading, try something like ddrescue. If you still have no luck, you can move the drive to a different machine or even replace its on-drive controller card with one from an _identical_ model -- I have successfully done this but it is difficult and not recommended unless you have some _very_ valuable data on that drive. From then on, you can treat (A) and (B) more or less the same: you might use fsck, debugfs, etc. on the filesystem, but before modifying it, you might want to make a copy image [in case (A) a copy of the copy] before modifying it -- or you might just run the tools in-place. Hard to say with the information you've provided, but from the sounds of it you may not have much luck -- your filesystem sounds pretty sick. If that's the case, you'll want to recover the contents rather than the filesystem; tools like PhotoRec, foremost, scalpel [fork of foremost], etc. will usually recover some of your files. Lots of options here: http://www.forensicswiki.org/wiki/Tools:Data_Recovery I should mention that in case (B) [no hardware failure], if you just want to jump to recovering the contents rather than the filesystem, it's not critical to make a copy image; you can just recover straight from the hard drive. Good luck, -- David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/527e4ce8.4020...@meta-dynamic.com
Re: ext3 file system
Josef Huber josef-hu...@gmx.net wrote: Yes, that's quite annoying: I had a similar problem once, because of hibernation with lenny and xp. Later I had to find out that if you use only Linux-OSs, the problem occurs as well. Why there isn't any warning with the file system not being saved correctly - I would really like to know that! What? Of course it can't work. Hibernation suspends the OS in a state from which it can continue later. Quite correctly it doesn't unmount filesystems, as this would close all open file descriptors on that file system. This in turn could en up killing processes - quite possibly including your session and maybe all system daemons. Now you're in a state where you might as well have restarted from scratch, negating all the advantages of suspend/hibernation. If you want to use the same filesystem between any two OS installations (whether Linux and Linux, or Windows and Linux, or any other combination) you must not (and cannot) use hibernation unless you first unmount the relevant filesystems. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5kn4n7xoif@news.roaima.co.uk
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:45:52 -0400 Frank debianl...@videotron.ca wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:51:12 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? It shouldn't be a problem, as long as the UUID is correct. If the partition has been re-formatted since /etc/fstab was created, the UUID might have changed. Verify that the UUIDs match. I have already done that. be confusing udev/blkid. But the first thing to try is manually umounting the file system in Ubuntu before shutdown. Further to this problem (I'm getting tired of re-booting)...I have tried copying mail in SYlpheed from Ubuntu (sda3) to Squeeze (sda2) several times..with and without manually unmounting sda2 before rebooting. If I unmount sda2 before rebooting after moving mail , there is no problem. Squeeze reboots without finding fs errors. If I don't manually unmount sda2 orphaned nodes are found when squeeze reboots. Yet when Ubuntu reboots, one of the messages is local file systems unmounted !! It seems Ubuntu is unmounting sda3, but not sda2. I guess this now belongs on the Ubuntu list ?? Thanks -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100914131735.7bd10429.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: ext3 file system
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:17:35 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: Further to this problem (I'm getting tired of re-booting)...I have tried copying mail in SYlpheed from Ubuntu (sda3) to Squeeze (sda2) several times..with and without manually unmounting sda2 before rebooting. If I unmount sda2 before rebooting after moving mail , there is no problem. Squeeze reboots without finding fs errors. If I don't manually unmount sda2 orphaned nodes are found when squeeze reboots. Yet when Ubuntu reboots, one of the messages is local file systems unmounted!! It seems Ubuntu is unmounting sda3, but not sda2. I guess this now belongs on the Ubuntu list?? Absolutely. This proves that the problem lies on the Ubuntu side. If /dev/sda2 is present in /etc/fstab on your Ubuntu system, either directly or indirectly via a UUID, and Ubuntu mounts that file system automatically on boot, then it should umount it automatically on shutdown. That is obviously not happening. The problem should be pursued on the Ubuntu forums. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/211512054.107727.1284485770245.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: ext3 file system
Frank put forth on 9/14/2010 12:17 PM: Further to this problem (I'm getting tired of re-booting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c8fe5f6.1090...@hardwarefreak.com
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: I have been having (minor?) problems with the ext3 file systems on my machine. I have Ubuntu installed on /dev/sda3, with Squeeze on /dev/sda2. Nearly everytime I go into Ubuntu, then back to Squeeze, the file system check recovers the journal, and finds 8 or 10 orphaned nodes. It seems to happen when I copy files from sda3 to sda2. I use Sylpheed as a mail client, and on both systems have several shared folders..that is folders that are symlinked. Any ideas on the problem ? That sounds like the file system is not being cleanly unmounted by Ubuntu during shutdown. You are doing a clean shutdown, aren't you? What happens if you manually umount the file system prior to shutting down Ubuntu? -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2132967522.73509.1284392492886.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:41:32 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: I have been having (minor?) problems with the ext3 file systems on my machine. I have Ubuntu installed on /dev/sda3, with Squeeze on /dev/sda2. Nearly everytime I go into Ubuntu, then back to Squeeze, the file system check recovers the journal, and finds 8 or 10 orphaned nodes. It seems to happen when I copy files from sda3 to sda2. I use Sylpheed as a mail client, and on both systems have several shared folders..that is folders that are symlinked. Any ideas on the problem ? That sounds like the file system is not being cleanly unmounted by Ubuntu during shutdown. You are doing a clean shutdown, aren't you? Ubuntu is using the graphical logon/logoff so I can't see what's going on, but yes the shutdown is clean. I **assume** the file system is being unmounted, but I'd have to disable graphics to see for sure. What happens if you manually umount the file system prior to shutting down Ubuntu? I have to try it and see. One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100913135112.26586065.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: ext3 file system
Yes, that's quite annoying: I had a similar problem once, because of hibernation with lenny and xp. Later I had to find out that if you use only Linux-OSs, the problem occurs as well. Why there isn't any warning with the file system not being saved correctly - I would really like to know that! Josef Huber Betreff: Re: ext3 file system Von: Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com Datum: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:41:32 -0400 (EDT) An: debian-user@lists.debian.org On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: I have been having (minor?) problems with the ext3 file systems on my machine. I have Ubuntu installed on /dev/sda3, with Squeeze on /dev/sda2. Nearly everytime I go into Ubuntu, then back to Squeeze, the file system check recovers the journal, and finds 8 or 10 orphaned nodes. It seems to happen when I copy files from sda3 to sda2. I use Sylpheed as a mail client, and on both systems have several shared folders..that is folders that are symlinked. Any ideas on the problem ? That sounds like the file system is not being cleanly unmounted by Ubuntu during shutdown. You are doing a clean shutdown, aren't you? What happens if you manually umount the file system prior to shutting down Ubuntu? -- .''`. Stephen Powell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c8e6114.1050...@gmx.net
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:51:12 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? You said Ubuntu both times. Which is Debian and which is Ubuntu? It shouldn't be a problem, as long as the UUID is correct. If the partition has been re-formatted since /etc/fstab was created, the UUID might have changed. Verify that the UUIDs match. The blkid command will tell you what the actual current UUID for a device is. For example: blkid /dev/sda2 If blkid returns no output, try wipefs (from package util-linux) to see if there are any residual file system signatures that may be confusing udev/blkid. But the first thing to try is manually umounting the file system in Ubuntu before shutdown. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1706648507.79405.1284403157035.javamail.r...@md01.wow.synacor.com
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:51:12 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? You said Ubuntu both times. Which is Debian and which is Ubuntu? It shouldn't be a problem, as long as the UUID is correct. If the partition has been re-formatted since /etc/fstab was created, the UUID might have changed. Verify that the UUIDs match. The blkid command will tell you what the actual current UUID for a device is. For example: blkid /dev/sda2 If blkid returns no output, try wipefs (from package util-linux) to see if there are any residual file system signatures that may be confusing udev/blkid. But the first thing to try is manually umounting the file system in Ubuntu before shutdown. Skip the blkid cache with blkid -c /dev/null /dev/sda2 Is sda3 ext3 or ext4? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimqhsrgaut0t0eae=bum5m_xwx_aidxnbei_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:39:17 -0400 (EDT) Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:51:12 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? You said Ubuntu both times. No, what I said was in the fstab on the Ubuntu partition, sda2 (Squeeze) is referred to as /dev/sda2, while that same fstab refers to the Ubuntu partition (sda3) by it's UUID It shouldn't be a problem, as long as the UUID is correct. If the partition has been re-formatted since /etc/fstab was created, the UUID might have changed. Verify that the UUIDs match. I have already done that. be confusing udev/blkid. But the first thing to try is manually umounting the file system in Ubuntu before shutdown. That's next. Thanks for your help so far. -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100913154552.27c484e3.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:02:54 -0400 Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Stephen Powell zlinux...@wowway.com wrote: On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:51:12 -0400 (EDT), Frank wrote: One thing I noticed...in Ubuntu's fstab, sda2 is referred to as /dev/sda2 while the Ubuntu partition is referenced by the UUID..I wonder if this is a problem ? You said Ubuntu both times. Which is Debian and which is Ubuntu? It shouldn't be a problem, as long as the UUID is correct. If the partition has been re-formatted since /etc/fstab was created, the UUID might have changed. Verify that the UUIDs match. The blkid command will tell you what the actual current UUID for a device is. For example: blkid /dev/sda2 If blkid returns no output, try wipefs (from package util-linux) to see if there are any residual file system signatures that may be confusing udev/blkid. But the first thing to try is manually umounting the file system in Ubuntu before shutdown. Skip the blkid cache with blkid -c /dev/null /dev/sda2 Is sda3 ext3 or ext4? Both sda3 and sda2 are ext3 formatted. Thanks -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100913154929.38e8c8dd.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: ext3 file system
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:01:08 -0400 Paul Cartwright deb...@pcartwright.com wrote: Ubuntu is using the graphical logon/logoff so I can't see what's going on, but yes the shutdown is clean. I **assume** the file system is being unmounted, but I'd have to disable graphics to see for sure. I think if you hit ESC ( escape) you can see the actual text of what is going on... OK thanks. -- -- Frank -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100913155818.fa312166.debianl...@videotron.ca
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El día 8 de agosto de 2010 00:47, Jose Pablo Rojas jrcarra...@gmail.com escribió: yo tambien soy del pensamiento que a ext4 hay que darle un poco más de tiempo para que llegue a su punto, en lo personal, en mi laptop tengo ext3 y cada cierto tiempo me da problemas la particion de que indica que está en uso y la única solución es bajar todos los servicios que pueden estar haciendo uso de ella y hacer un e2fsck para que repare los inodos con problemas y volver a la normalidad. 2010/8/5 Federico Alberto Sayd fs...@uncu.edu.ar El 04/08/10 15:14, mmejiav escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias Si es un equipo casero y no tienes datos altamente crítico te recomiendo que uses ext4, se nota bastante la diferencia. Además hay varios benchmarks dando vuelta que muestran que ext4 aporta mucho rendimiento y por otra parte ya hay otras distros no tan conservadoras como Debian que lo usan por defecto. Además los problemas con ext4 de perdidas de información ya han sido arreglados en las últimas versiones. En resumen, si lo que quieres es ganar rendimiento yo apostaría por ext4. Saludos -- Gracias a todos por sus amables respuestas. Tomé la arriesgada decisión de dejarlo en ext4... esperemos a ver como funcionan las cosas (hasta el momento bien) si algo falla o molesta ya les contaré como y que paso. saludos -- J Mauricio Mejia Vargas - b0r0las Linux User # 381752 http://mmejiav.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/b0r0las -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktim9revmyqwp3hvh5xv0uthtsnpkxvd18cx6v...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
yo tambien soy del pensamiento que a ext4 hay que darle un poco más de tiempo para que llegue a su punto, en lo personal, en mi laptop tengo ext3 y cada cierto tiempo me da problemas la particion de que indica que está en uso y la única solución es bajar todos los servicios que pueden estar haciendo uso de ella y hacer un e2fsck para que repare los inodos con problemas y volver a la normalidad. 2010/8/5 Federico Alberto Sayd fs...@uncu.edu.ar El 04/08/10 15:14, mmejiav escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias Si es un equipo casero y no tienes datos altamente crítico te recomiendo que uses ext4, se nota bastante la diferencia. Además hay varios benchmarks dando vuelta que muestran que ext4 aporta mucho rendimiento y por otra parte ya hay otras distros no tan conservadoras como Debian que lo usan por defecto. Además los problemas con ext4 de perdidas de información ya han sido arreglados en las últimas versiones. En resumen, si lo que quieres es ganar rendimiento yo apostaría por ext4. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5abfcb.1000...@uncu.edu.ar
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El 05/08/10 00:33, Camaleón escribió: El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:44:45 +0200, Javier Barroso escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón: (...) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. ¿Alguna razón para elegir ReiserFS? Dos razones y media, principalmente. 1/ Trabaja bien con archivos pequeños por lo que me viene de perlas para los servidores (Apache y Postfix). 2/ Se recupera bien de los apagones a lo bruto y he tenido varios (aunque no tengo ningún equipo sin un SAI detrás, cuando el sistema se queda frito pues no hay más remedio que hacer un reset). ReiserFS no sólo es rápido en hacer el chequeo sino que nunca lo he tenido que reparar de forma manual. La media razón es el tiempo de chequeo de ext3, sí... no hay quien lo aguante :-) Quizás la única desventaja del ext3 es el tiempo de chequeo, no ? Lo bueno es que con linux no tenemos que reiniciar mucho ^ ^ La familia ext[n] no me termina de convencer. Siempre he usado ReiserFS en las particiones de sistema y en las pocas ocasiones que he puesto ext3 como sistema de archivos raíz, he notado cierta lentitud. Ext3 lo uso principalmente para los volúmenes de datos -donde se almacenan ficheros de gran tamaño- porque es estable y robusto, bien conocido y con herramientas de recuperación disponibles. No me atrevería a pasarlos a ext4, al menos no de momento. Ext4 tiene un rodaje de apenas 2 años contra los 9 años de ext3. Quizá en un sistema casero no importe tanto uno u otro pero en un sistema de archivos personalmente valoro la estabilidad y la fiabilidad ante cualquier otra consideración. Y mientras ReiserFS siga estando disponible y me siga dando buen servicio, lo seguiré utilizando como sistema de archivos principal. Saludos, Para cuando se te quede frito un servidor, si es debian lleva las magic sysrq de serie, alt+petsis+s alt+petsis+u alt+petsis+b Un saludo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5a5644.6060...@limbo.ari.es
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
Para cuando se te quede frito un servidor, si es debian lleva las magic sysrq de serie, alt+petsis+s alt+petsis+u alt+petsis+b Un saludo Buenas. Pensaba que esto venia de serie en los GNU/linux. ¿Esta dentro de ese paquete? Entiendo que es esto: Pulsamos las teclas ALT y la de “Imprimir pantalla”, y sin soltarlas vamos escribiendo poco a poco REISUB. Con esto logramos reiniciar nuestro sistema de manera segura ya que según vamos pulsando las teclas vamos mandando una orden a nuestro sistema, tales como: R.- Devuelve el control al teclado (Raw) E.- Manda todos los procesos al term, es decir, los hace terminar (End) I.- Manda los procesos al Kill, es decir, los mata. S.- Sincroniza el disco duro (Sync) U.- Desmonta todos los sistemas de ficheros (Unmount) B.- Por último, reinicia el ordenador. (reBoot) Fuente: http://www.softhoy.com/linux/reisub-contra-los-bloqueos.html Un saludo -- This is Unix-Land. In quiet nights, you can hear the Windows machines reboot No me envie correos en formatos propietarios http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.es.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/blu0-smtp2343495defc61209a00f34b1...@phx.gbl
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Thu, 05 Aug 2010 11:18:54 +0200, jmramirez escribió: Para cuando se te quede frito un servidor, si es debian lleva las magic sysrq de serie, alt+petsis+s alt+petsis+u alt+petsis+b Gracias... pues mira, eso no lo sabía (que estaba habilitado de manera predeterminada). De momento no he tenido ningún cuelgue en Debian, pero sólo llevo por aquí ~10 meses :-) Pensaba que esto venia de serie en los GNU/linux. (...) En openSUSE no, había que activarlo expresamente. No se si lo habrán cambiado. Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.05.09.27...@gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El 04/08/10 15:14, mmejiav escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias Si es un equipo casero y no tienes datos altamente crítico te recomiendo que uses ext4, se nota bastante la diferencia. Además hay varios benchmarks dando vuelta que muestran que ext4 aporta mucho rendimiento y por otra parte ya hay otras distros no tan conservadoras como Debian que lo usan por defecto. Además los problemas con ext4 de perdidas de información ya han sido arreglados en las últimas versiones. En resumen, si lo que quieres es ganar rendimiento yo apostaría por ext4. Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c5abfcb.1000...@uncu.edu.ar
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El 4 de agosto de 2010 15:14, mmejiav mauricio.meji...@gmail.com escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias -- J Mauricio Mejia Vargas - b0r0las Linux User # 381752 http://mmejiav.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/b0r0las -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti.2sr9jajbkrkgeepef0ippz6c9qc1wbpk...@mail.gmail.com Hola mira yo tambien tengo 1 disco de 1Tb, y lo uso con ext4, sinceramente se nota mucho la diferencia. en una oportunidad perdi datos a causa de una equivocacion mia, y borre muchos archivo, luego con diferentes herramientas logre recuperar mas de un 90%. -- dar...@nomadesoft.com.ar daniel_esteban_ar...@yahoo.com 3874149...@sms.ctimovil.com.ar daniel_esteban_ar...@hotmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 mmejiav mauricio.meji...@gmail.com Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) -- Marc
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:43:50 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 mmejiav Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.18.48...@gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 darias dariass...@gmail.com: El 4 de agosto de 2010 15:14, mmejiav mauricio.meji...@gmail.com escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias -- J Mauricio Mejia Vargas - b0r0las Linux User # 381752 http://mmejiav.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/b0r0las -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti.2sr9jajbkrkgeepef0ippz6c9qc1wbpk...@mail.gmail.com Hola mira yo tambien tengo 1 disco de 1Tb, y lo uso con ext4, sinceramente se nota mucho la diferencia. en una oportunidad perdi datos a causa de una equivocacion mia, y borre muchos archivo, luego con diferentes herramientas logre recuperar mas de un 90%. Que raro, yo perdí unos archivos usando ext3 y cuando me puse a investigar resulta que por usar journaling (la diferencia agregada entre ext2 y ext3) no tenes muchas posibilidades de recuperar un archivo borrado y supuse que en ext4 valía la misma regla. Por lo que entendí y recuerdo (y corrijanme si esto no es así) que lo único que podías hacer era recuperar de a pedazos de información (recorriendo los inodos o usando el dd o algo similar) y ver si de eso podrías rescatar algo. Me volví a fijar en unas FAQS de ext3 http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html Y las técnicas de recuperación que hay dando vueltas http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/howto/undelete_ext3.html (les debo estos links en español) Como funciona esto en ext4? La verdad que es un tema super interesante si uno va a guardar tanta información concentrada en un solo disco. En mi caso es un disco de 1.5 tb con una sola particion ext3 y usando algoritmos de backup con historial de forma regular para no perder archivos. Saludos. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktim=qz=sh2k+brq-jwjkg2amxejraaq9hnlt7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El 4 de agosto de 2010 15:57, Damian Montaldo damianmonta...@gmail.comescribió: 2010/8/4 darias dariass...@gmail.com: El 4 de agosto de 2010 15:14, mmejiav mauricio.meji...@gmail.com escribió: Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? gracias -- J Mauricio Mejia Vargas - b0r0las Linux User # 381752 http://mmejiav.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/b0r0las -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti.2sr9jajbkrkgeepef0ippz6c9qc1wbpk...@mail.gmail.com Hola mira yo tambien tengo 1 disco de 1Tb, y lo uso con ext4, sinceramente se nota mucho la diferencia. en una oportunidad perdi datos a causa de una equivocacion mia, y borre muchos archivo, luego con diferentes herramientas logre recuperar mas de un 90%. Que raro, yo perdí unos archivos usando ext3 y cuando me puse a investigar resulta que por usar journaling (la diferencia agregada entre ext2 y ext3) no tenes muchas posibilidades de recuperar un archivo borrado y supuse que en ext4 valía la misma regla. Por lo que entendí y recuerdo (y corrijanme si esto no es así) que lo único que podías hacer era recuperar de a pedazos de información (recorriendo los inodos o usando el dd o algo similar) y ver si de eso podrías rescatar algo. Me volví a fijar en unas FAQS de ext3 http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html Y las técnicas de recuperación que hay dando vueltas http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/howto/undelete_ext3.htmlhttp://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ecarlo17/howto/undelete_ext3.html (les debo estos links en español) Como funciona esto en ext4? La verdad que es un tema super interesante si uno va a guardar tanta información concentrada en un solo disco. En mi caso es un disco de 1.5 tb con una sola particion ext3 y usando algoritmos de backup con historial de forma regular para no perder archivos. Saludos. Yo en realidad no sabia mucho acerca de la recuperacion de archivos borrados ni particiones dañadas, me puse a investigar cdo me ocurrio ese accidente, de todo ello consegui probar con extundelete,Foremost, scalpel, dd, y testdisk que ademas viene con photorec, q apesar del nombre sirve para recuperar diferentes formatos de archivos, no solamente fotos, las tecnicas utilizadas son esas de recuperar recorriendo los nodos, me fue tan bien que no tan solo recupere los q habia borrado x accidente sino tambien recupere cosas q habian sido borradas hace muuucho tiempo, cdo compre el disco. esta experiencia fue buena xq apartir de ese momento comence a utilizar dd para sacar imagenes d disco incluidas las tablas de particiones y guardarlas en dvd, ademas de utilizar rsync en otro disco portatil. en este momento uso unicamente ext4 en todos mis discos. en mi primer comentario dije q se notaba mucho la diferencia entre ext3 y ext4 y no aclare en que aspecto, bueno me referia a la velocidad de acceso ademas de la posibilidad de recuperar datos. -- dar...@nomadesoft.com.ar daniel_esteban_ar...@yahoo.com 3874149...@sms.ctimovil.com.ar daniel_esteban_ar...@hotmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 Camaleón noela...@gmail.com El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:43:50 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 mmejiav Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_features_are_supported_by_the_ext3_file_system.3F [2] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_netbook_fsnum=5 Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.18.48...@gmail.com -- Marc
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 Marc Aymerich glicer...@gmail.com 2010/8/4 Camaleón noela...@gmail.com El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 20:43:50 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 mmejiav Saludos estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. [1] https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_features_are_supported_by_the_ext3_file_system.3F [2] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ubuntu_netbook_fsnum=5 ups, en el [2] se me ha colado el link en la última pagina del review. Hay que ver las 4 anteriores :) Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.18.48...@gmail.com -- Marc -- Marc
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:54:07 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. Ah, pensaba que decías que no estaba disponible, qué susto :-) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.20.18...@gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 Camaleón noela...@gmail.com El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:54:07 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. Ah, pensaba que decías que no estaba disponible, qué susto :-) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. Para entonces btrfs ya será estable :) -- Marc
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:40:13 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:54:07 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. Ah, pensaba que decías que no estaba disponible, qué susto :-) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. Para entonces btrfs ya será estable :) Je, je... dentro de 2 años btrfs estará como ahora ext4 O;-) Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.21.15...@gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El mié, 04-08-2010 a las 13:14 -0500, mmejiav escribió: estoy planeando instalar squeeze en un disco duro de 1 tb nuevo en un equipo casero deseo conocer según lo que han leído o probado cual es mejor para dicho montaje: ext3 o ext4? Pues la verdad es que todavía no he probado el ext4, pero yo ni me lo plantearía, ext4 directamente. Por puro sentido común es ext3 + algo mas, y que yo sepa no hay quejas... y por probar... Un saludo JulHer signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
2010/8/4 Camaleón noela...@gmail.com: El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:54:07 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. Ah, pensaba que decías que no estaba disponible, qué susto :-) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. ¿Alguna razón para elegir ReiserFS? Quizás la única desventaja del ext3 es el tiempo de chequeo, no ? Lo bueno es que con linux no tenemos que reiniciar mucho ^ ^ Saludos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinhma4jzrrmzacsjgr7b44a_ddcizdexzqon...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:44:45 +0200, Javier Barroso escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón noela...@gmail.com: El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:54:07 +0200, Marc Aymerich escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón SI usas la rama testing, con un kernel reciente, olvidate de ext3 :) ¿Y eso? ext4 tiene todo y mas de lo que tiene ext3[1] y además lo desbanca en rendimiento[2]. Ah, pensaba que decías que no estaba disponible, qué susto :-) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. ¿Alguna razón para elegir ReiserFS? Quizás la única desventaja del ext3 es el tiempo de chequeo, no ? Lo bueno es que con linux no tenemos que reiniciar mucho ^ ^ Saludos ¿Qué las computadoras con GNU/linux no se apagan? Siempre prendo y apago mi laptop, me extraño mucho tu comentario. -- Marcos Delgado -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/i3cp41$ek...@dough.gmane.org
Re: ext3 o ext4 para disco de 1 tb?
El Wed, 04 Aug 2010 23:44:45 +0200, Javier Barroso escribió: 2010/8/4 Camaleón: (...) Ná, yo siempre monto ReiserFS. Ext4 es demasiado novedoso para mi gusto, un par de añitos más de rodaje y estará en su punto. ¿Alguna razón para elegir ReiserFS? Dos razones y media, principalmente. 1/ Trabaja bien con archivos pequeños por lo que me viene de perlas para los servidores (Apache y Postfix). 2/ Se recupera bien de los apagones a lo bruto y he tenido varios (aunque no tengo ningún equipo sin un SAI detrás, cuando el sistema se queda frito pues no hay más remedio que hacer un reset). ReiserFS no sólo es rápido en hacer el chequeo sino que nunca lo he tenido que reparar de forma manual. La media razón es el tiempo de chequeo de ext3, sí... no hay quien lo aguante :-) Quizás la única desventaja del ext3 es el tiempo de chequeo, no ? Lo bueno es que con linux no tenemos que reiniciar mucho ^ ^ La familia ext[n] no me termina de convencer. Siempre he usado ReiserFS en las particiones de sistema y en las pocas ocasiones que he puesto ext3 como sistema de archivos raíz, he notado cierta lentitud. Ext3 lo uso principalmente para los volúmenes de datos -donde se almacenan ficheros de gran tamaño- porque es estable y robusto, bien conocido y con herramientas de recuperación disponibles. No me atrevería a pasarlos a ext4, al menos no de momento. Ext4 tiene un rodaje de apenas 2 años contra los 9 años de ext3. Quizá en un sistema casero no importe tanto uno u otro pero en un sistema de archivos personalmente valoro la estabilidad y la fiabilidad ante cualquier otra consideración. Y mientras ReiserFS siga estando disponible y me siga dando buen servicio, lo seguiré utilizando como sistema de archivos principal. Saludos, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-spanish-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.08.04.22.33...@gmail.com
Re: ext3 mkfs issues with a fresh file system ?
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 09:53:00PM +, Bhasker C V wrote: Bhasker C V wrote: Bhasker C V wrote: [ 41 lines sniped] hardware issue ... please ignore... Could you please trim your replies on this list. -- Chris. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ext3 mkfs issues with a fresh file system ?
Bhasker C V wrote: Hi all, This is strange. I created a file system on top of luks and does not have any data yet. The very first fsck gives an error in the freshly created file system ! $ sudo mke2fs -j /dev/mapper/cryptvol mke2fs 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 19537920 inodes, 78142677 blocks 3907133 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=0 2385 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 8192 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 2048, 23887872, 71663616 Writing inode tables: done Creating journal (32768 blocks): done Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done This filesystem will be automatically checked every 25 mounts or 180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override. $ sudo e2fsck -f -C0 /dev/mapper/cryptvol e2fsck 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) Superblock has an invalid ext3 journal (inode 8). Cleary? on etch . K 2.6.32 ext3:mke2fs 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) -- Bhasker C V Registered Linux user: #306349 (counter.li.org) Fedora Ambassador: Bhaslinux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ext3 mkfs issues with a fresh file system ?
Bhasker C V wrote: Bhasker C V wrote: Hi all, This is strange. I created a file system on top of luks and does not have any data yet. The very first fsck gives an error in the freshly created file system ! $ sudo mke2fs -j /dev/mapper/cryptvol mke2fs 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) Filesystem label= OS type: Linux Block size=4096 (log=2) Fragment size=4096 (log=2) 19537920 inodes, 78142677 blocks 3907133 blocks (5.00%) reserved for the super user First data block=0 Maximum filesystem blocks=0 2385 block groups 32768 blocks per group, 32768 fragments per group 8192 inodes per group Superblock backups stored on blocks: 32768, 98304, 163840, 229376, 294912, 819200, 884736, 1605632, 2654208, 4096000, 7962624, 11239424, 2048, 23887872, 71663616 Writing inode tables: done Creating journal (32768 blocks): done Writing superblocks and filesystem accounting information: done This filesystem will be automatically checked every 25 mounts or 180 days, whichever comes first. Use tune2fs -c or -i to override. $ sudo e2fsck -f -C0 /dev/mapper/cryptvol e2fsck 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) Superblock has an invalid ext3 journal (inode 8). Cleary? on etch . K 2.6.32 ext3:mke2fs 1.41.2 (02-Oct-2008) hardware issue ... please ignore... -- Bhasker C V Registered Linux user: #306349 (counter.li.org) Fedora Ambassador: Bhaslinux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: EXT3 - Forçar verificação dos discos
Ola Marcos e Eduardo Desculpe a demora porem testei os 2 comandos e me atendeu super bem. Obrigado. 2009/7/10 Marcos Paulo Serafim mpsera...@gmail.com: Olá, Dá uma olhada no tune2fs: -C mount-count Set the number of times the filesystem has been mounted. If set to a greater value than the max-mount-counts parameter set by the -c option, e2fsck(8) will check the filesystem at the next reboot. -- Marcos Paulo Serafim Analista de Suporte Técnico / Support Analyst mpserafim (at) gmail (dot) com Orlandia/SP - Brazil MSN: mpserafim (at) gmail (dot) com; Linux User: #171191; FP: EB38 D704 A4FD 2677 A2B2 A052 F44E CAA5 45FB 1F42 Tadeu Cruz escreveu: Olá a todos, Existe alguma forma de forçar a verificação dos discos no próximo boot do sistema ? Obrigado. -- http://blog.tadeucruz.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: EXT3 - Forçar verificação dos dis cos
Olá, Dá uma olhada no tune2fs: -C mount-count Set the number of times the filesystem has been mounted. If set to a greater value than the max-mount-counts parameter set by the -c option, e2fsck(8) will check the filesystem at the next reboot. -- Marcos Paulo Serafim Analista de Suporte Técnico / Support Analyst mpserafim (at) gmail (dot) com Orlandia/SP - Brazil MSN: mpserafim (at) gmail (dot) com; Linux User: #171191; FP: EB38 D704 A4FD 2677 A2B2 A052 F44E CAA5 45FB 1F42 Tadeu Cruz escreveu: Olá a todos, Existe alguma forma de forçar a verificação dos discos no próximo boot do sistema ? Obrigado. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: EXT3 - Forçar verificação dos discos
Viva Tadeu, pode efectuar o comando shutdown -rF now Ele ira fazer fsck toda a vez que você reiniciar o servidor. --- Eduardo Silvestre nfsi telecom, lda. eduardo.silves...@nfsi.pt Tel. (+351) 21 949 2300 - Fax (+351) 21 949 2301 http://www.nfsi.pt/ - Original Message - From: Tadeu Cruz tadeuc...@tadeucruz.com To: debian-user-portuguese@lists.debian.org Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:22:54 PM GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: EXT3 - Forçar verificação dos discos Olá a todos, Existe alguma forma de forçar a verificação dos discos no próximo boot do sistema ? Obrigado. -- http://blog.tadeucruz.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-portuguese-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ext3 external journal
Hi, today i realised that tune2fs is able to change the uuid of the journal (partition/fs?) so i was able to fsck the volume and i am looking forward to get it back online within the day. Thouh i am still unclear about the semantics of the 'force' flag of tune2fs. Any hints? greets Felix Resch -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Masatran / Deepak, R. masat...@freeshell.org writes: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my laptop to my work computer, the UIDs on the Ext3 partition are used for the permissions, so I am not able to access the data. How can I fix this? Both computers run Debian Lenny. The laptop runs Sawfish while the work computer runs Gnome. I manually mount the flash drive in Sawfish, and I have a FSTAB entry to allow this without Sudo. Gnome does an automatic mount. I don't have superuser privilege on the work computer. I am willing to use non-Ext3 filesystems, I just want RWX-RWX-RWX-style file permissions. I use tar. Leave the format in FAT. Make tar file (with compression usually). Copy tar file to USB drive. The tar file will contain permissions. You might even be able to use tar straight to the flash drive like tar cvf /dev/sda files... I used floppies like that. But that gives you only one archive per USB. -- Johan KULLSTAM -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Stefan Monnier wrote: does it apply on CF cards? The name says flash, so I would assume yes? But still, I think it really reasonable to consider the life of the media. Yes, same thing. BTW, regarding the life of the media: let's say the internal maximum write speed is 50MB/s, an expected lifetime of 10-writes, and a capacity of 30GB, that gives you a minimum time to write failure of 2 years (30GB * 10 / 50MB/s). I.e. it will take about 2 years of continuous write operation before the flash will fail because of excessive writes. As I said: I wouldn't worry about it. Stefan thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Stefan Monnier wrote: Why ext2 rather than ext3? I think you trimmed that line a bit prematurely in that it went on to say flash drive. ext2 is arguably better than ext3 for flash drives because of the reduced number of writes to disk. The extra writes of ext3 have 2 consequences: 1 - slow things down 2 - wear out the media Only point 2 is specific to flash, and it only matters if it will cause the media to die sooner. With current flash media, obsolescence will come much sooner than death, so ext3 is just as suited for flash as it is for magnetic media. Stefan Very interesting story! does it apply on CF cards? The name says flash, so I would assume yes? But still, I think it really reasonable to consider the life of the media. regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
does it apply on CF cards? The name says flash, so I would assume yes? But still, I think it really reasonable to consider the life of the media. Yes, same thing. BTW, regarding the life of the media: let's say the internal maximum write speed is 50MB/s, an expected lifetime of 10-writes, and a capacity of 30GB, that gives you a minimum time to write failure of 2 years (30GB * 10 / 50MB/s). I.e. it will take about 2 years of continuous write operation before the flash will fail because of excessive writes. As I said: I wouldn't worry about it. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 07:15:33AM +, Bob Cox wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 22:14:59 -0700, Mike McClain (mike.j...@nethere.com) wrote: Which versions of Windows can read ext2? Windows 95/98/2000/XP/NT definitely. Not sure about Vista. Google for explore2fs. Found it, DL'd it. Thank you very much, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 22:14:59 -0700, Mike McClain (mike.j...@nethere.com) wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38:35PM +0100, Jens Van Broeckhoven wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R. wrote: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my snip Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your flash drive. Even Windows supports it. I did not know that. Which versions of Windows can read ext2? Windows 95/98/2000/XP/NT definitely. Not sure about Vista. Google for explore2fs. -- Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK. Please reply to the list only. Do NOT send copies directly to me. Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Mike McClain wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38:35PM +0100, Jens Van Broeckhoven wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R. wrote: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my snip Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your flash drive. Even Windows supports it. I did not know that. Which versions of Windows can read ext2? TIA, Mike Any version, 95+, just requires a driver. Not official. 3rd party. MArk Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your Why ext2 rather than ext3? Google for explore2fs. It claims to support both ext2 and ext3. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:04:27 -0400, Stefan Monnier (monn...@iro.umontreal.ca) wrote: Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your Why ext2 rather than ext3? I think you trimmed that line a bit prematurely in that it went on to say flash drive. ext2 is arguably better than ext3 for flash drives because of the reduced number of writes to disk. Google for explore2fs. It claims to support both ext2 and ext3. It does support both. (Because from a read-only point of view they are the same?) -- Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK. Please reply to the list only. Do NOT send copies directly to me. Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Why ext2 rather than ext3? I think you trimmed that line a bit prematurely in that it went on to say flash drive. ext2 is arguably better than ext3 for flash drives because of the reduced number of writes to disk. The extra writes of ext3 have 2 consequences: 1 - slow things down 2 - wear out the media Only point 2 is specific to flash, and it only matters if it will cause the media to die sooner. With current flash media, obsolescence will come much sooner than death, so ext3 is just as suited for flash as it is for magnetic media. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
2009/3/12 Bob Cox debian-u...@lists.bobcox.com: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 22:14:59 -0700, Mike McClain (mike.j...@nethere.com) wrote: On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38:35PM +0100, Jens Van Broeckhoven wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R. wrote: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my snip Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your flash drive. Even Windows supports it. I did not know that. Which versions of Windows can read ext2? Windows 95/98/2000/XP/NT definitely. Not sure about Vista. Google for explore2fs. Or ext2ifs Installable file system. Adrian -- 24x7x365 != 24x7x52 Stupid or bad maths? erno hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Mark Allums wrote: Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. And FAT32 is better? Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFat is a relatively new FS that is designed specifically for removable drives. It is superficially an extended FAT, while the underlying bits are new. MS has added it to Vista with SP1, and to XP with a hotfix. Everyone should hope someone competent takes the time to port it to Linux, with full write capability. It is exactly what OP needs. In the meantime, for removable drives 32G and under, one should probably stick to FAT32/vfat. Mark Allums I disagree. Linux already has jffs2 for embedded flash applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2 However flash drives have their own controller: Removable flash memory cards and USB flash drives have built-in controllers to perform wear-levelling and error correction so use of a specific flash file system does not add any benefit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_flash#Flash_file_systems Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Sam Leon wrote: Mark Allums wrote: Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. And FAT32 is better? Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFat is a relatively new FS that is designed specifically for removable drives. It is superficially an extended FAT, while the underlying bits are new. MS has added it to Vista with SP1, and to XP with a hotfix. Everyone should hope someone competent takes the time to port it to Linux, with full write capability. It is exactly what OP needs. In the meantime, for removable drives 32G and under, one should probably stick to FAT32/vfat. Mark Allums I disagree. Linux already has jffs2 for embedded flash applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2 However flash drives have their own controller: Removable flash memory cards and USB flash drives have built-in controllers to perform wear-levelling and error correction so use of a specific flash file system does not add any benefit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_flash#Flash_file_systems Sam I think you have missed my point. exFat has advantages that have nothing to do with wear-leveling, etc. exFat is not a flash file system, is is a file system, period. It addresses some of the problems and limitation of FAT, and doesn't suffer as badly when removed without unmounting. It is intended for *removable* storage, not necessarily flash. MArk Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. ext3 is not significantly different in this respect from most other FSes (including FAT) to be a deciding factor, usually. Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Masatran / Deepak, R. wrote: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my laptop to my work computer, the UIDs on the Ext3 partition are used for the permissions, so I am not able to access the data. How can I fix this? Both computers run Debian Lenny. The laptop runs Sawfish while the work computer runs Gnome. I manually mount the flash drive in Sawfish, and I have a FSTAB entry to allow this without Sudo. Gnome does an automatic mount. I don't have superuser privilege on the work computer. I am willing to use non-Ext3 filesystems, I just want RWX-RWX-RWX-style file permissions. Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your flash drive. Even Windows supports it. -- .''`. Jens Van Broeckhoven : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org/ `-Top-post-whole-quote-syndrome is evil! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:19:09AM -0500, Mark Allums wrote: Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFAT is written by a known patent troll who is already suing a Linux company for a patent that may or may not be valid. I'd stay away from exFAT. http://lwn.net/Articles/321432/ (currently requires LWN subscription) http://lwn.net/Articles/320737/ -- Tzafrir Cohen | tzaf...@jabber.org | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's tzaf...@cohens.org.il || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Sam Leon wrote: Mark Allums wrote: Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. And FAT32 is better? Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFat is a relatively new FS that is designed specifically for removable drives. It is superficially an extended FAT, while the underlying bits are new. MS has added it to Vista with SP1, and to XP with a hotfix. Everyone should hope someone competent takes the time to port it to Linux, with full write capability. It is exactly what OP needs. In the meantime, for removable drives 32G and under, one should probably stick to FAT32/vfat. Mark Allums I disagree. Linux already has jffs2 for embedded flash applications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFFS2 However flash drives have their own controller: Removable flash memory cards and USB flash drives have built-in controllers to perform wear-levelling and error correction so use of a specific flash file system does not add any benefit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_flash#Flash_file_systems Sam Sorry, I got threads confused, I did not mean to hijack. I was thinking of something else. I stick by my remarks, in context. ExFat is a very appropriate FS for removable drives. Flash is not particularly relevant. Mark Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:38:35PM +0100, Jens Van Broeckhoven wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R. wrote: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. The problem is that when I transfer files from my snip Why so many difficult answers? If you normally use ext3, use ext2(ext3 without journalizing) on your flash drive. Even Windows supports it. I did not know that. Which versions of Windows can read ext2? TIA, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. The problem is that when I transfer files from my laptop to my work computer, the UIDs on the Ext3 partition are used for the permissions, so I am not able to access the data. How can I fix this? You can't unless the UIDs on both systems are equal. As far as I know, all filesystems with UNIX-style permissions only store UIDs, not usernames. J. -- If politics is the blind leading the blind, entertainment is the fucked- up leading the hypnotised. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. And FAT32 is better? -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 If I can't dance, I don't want to be part of your revolution. -- Emma Goldman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Ext3 for flash drive
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 08:23:43PM +0100, Jochen Schulz wrote: Masatran / Deepak, R.: Recently, I re-partitioned my flash drive. I made one FAT32 partition, and one Ext3 partition. Is ext3 on a flash medium really a good idea? At least cheap flash drives probably don't have smart wear levelling. And FAT32 is better? Let's us all start a movement, an exFat on Linux movement. exFat is a relatively new FS that is designed specifically for removable drives. It is superficially an extended FAT, while the underlying bits are new. MS has added it to Vista with SP1, and to XP with a hotfix. Everyone should hope someone competent takes the time to port it to Linux, with full write capability. It is exactly what OP needs. In the meantime, for removable drives 32G and under, one should probably stick to FAT32/vfat. Mark Allums -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:30:26PM +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2008-10-15 11:05:24, schrieb Adam Hardy: Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? There are none. You can even have a backslash in the Filename But you can't have a slash in a file name. It is a directory separator. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il || a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] || best ICQ# 16849754 || friend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Am 2008-10-15 11:05:24, schrieb Adam Hardy: Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? There are none. You can even have a backslash in the Filename Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
RE: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
After reading the comments here: http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20031114045400715 I think the behaviour has been changed in Mac OS X, but the userspace tools seem to handle it inconsistently. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filename#Reserved_characters_and_words. -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:37 PM To: debian-user@lists.debian.org Cc: List Debian User Subject: Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Tammo Schuelke on 15/10/08 11:15, wrote: -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:05 PM To: List Debian User Subject: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Have you tried creating a file with a colon in its name by hand? I just tested it, both ext3 and samba don't have a problem with it (only Windows clients don't like it). With which error message does it fail? Blast! I thought I was being clever and because I didn't want to confuse the issue, I actually changed that file name above. Originally the dialog box error message on the mac had a slash instead of a colon: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786/ABPerson.abcdp I thought, uh-huh, let's find it then - but when I searched for it, all I found was the name with the colon, so I figured that must be the problem file and that the error handling had somehow 'escaped' the colon into a slash. So I can only assume that there was some sort of temporary file with the slash in it then, which disappeared. Yet I do seem to have a file name with a colon in it, despite that link from XvsXP. Here's the output from find: Last login: Wed Oct 15 10:03:23 on console Welcome to Darwin! sylvie-computer:~ sylvie$ find . -name *ABPerson* ./Library/Application Support/AddressBook/.skIndex.ABPerson.lockN ./Library/Application Support/AddressBook/ABPerson.skIndexInverted ./Library/Application Support/Quicksilver/PlugIns/iChat Module.qsplugin/Contents/Resources/ABPerson-Fez.h ./Library/Caches/com.apple.AddressBook/MetaData/2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619- C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp ./Library/Caches/com.apple.AddressBook/MetaData/4B1A764D-C182-4200-88DB- 0686716AAB89:ABPerson.abcdp sylvie-computer:~ sylvie$ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Adam Hardy wrote: After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Funny thing is, the colon is a restricted character in Mac filesystems, too... the colon at least until OS X (and possibly still in the finder) use : as a filename seperator... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
On 2008-Oct-15, at 6:05 AM, Adam Hardy wrote: I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. I would create a sparse bundle (formatted as HFS+) on the Samba share and back up to that. This would mean an extra mount/unmount to access the filesystem, but you may be able to automate those steps depending on what your back-up process is. I don't think you can create the bundle on the Samba share because of some unsupported locking or somesuch, so create it on your Mac and copy it over. (I think you will see an error on the copy, too, but the sparse bundle should work anyway in my experience. Also note that size you give to the sparse bundle is just a maximum. It will actually be quite small until you add files, so don't worry about creating it locally and moving it.) Feel free to e-mail me directly if you need help with any of this. (or Google it. There are quite a few good articles out there.) -- Rob McBroom http://www.skurfer.com/ Because it screws up the order in which people normally read text. Original message: Why is it bad to top-post your reply? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Adam Hardy wrote: Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. I don't think so: $ touch test:test $ ls test:test test:test so colons are not a problem. I also don't see any other character that should pose a problem, so I guess you have some other difficultly. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Thanks Adam signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
RE: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Have you tried creating a file with a colon in its name by hand? I just tested it, both ext3 and samba don't have a problem with it (only Windows clients don't like it). With which error message does it fail? Tammo -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:05 PM To: List Debian User Subject: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Thanks Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
PS: the file with a colon in its name comes from a Mac? From what I just read, the Mac OS FS (HFS+) doesn't support colons in filenames. http://www.xvsxp.com/files/forbidden.php Tammo -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:05 PM To: List Debian User Subject: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Thanks Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Have you tried creating a file with a colon in its name by hand? I just tested it, both ext3 and samba don't have a problem with it (only Windows clients don't like it). With which error message does it fail? Tammo -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:05 PM To: List Debian User Subject: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Thanks Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Adam Hardy: For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. I am not sure either, but I'd bet on that, too. I guess this is not even a problem with neither MacOS X or ext3 -- it might be a restriction you get because you are using samba. On Windows the colon has a special meaning in path names (it's exclusively used for drive letters like c:) and I wouldn't be surprised if this is reflected in their filesharing protocol as well. J. -- Quite often I wonder why I am not more famous and/or more wealthy. [Agree] [Disagree] http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Jochen Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam Hardy: For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. I am not sure either, but I'd bet on that, too. I guess this is not even a problem with neither MacOS X or ext3 -- it might be a restriction you get because you are using samba. On Windows the colon has a special meaning in path names (it's exclusively used for drive letters like c:) This isn't entirely true; the reason it's restricted it that it's used to denote Alternate Data Streams. In fact, NTFS supports the same filenames as ext3 or other Posix-compatible filesystems, but the Win32 API does not. This means it's possible to create a file that cannot be read/changed/deleted from within Windows, unless you're using SFU, which is unavailable on 64-bit Windows. Even Cygwin can't help since it's layered on top of the Win32 subsystem. Yes, I speak from bitter experience :-(. and I wouldn't be surprised if this is reflected in their filesharing protocol as well. J. This doesn't seem right however - I distinctly recall spending several hours trying to figure out why I couldn't copy some files from a Samba share in Windows, and eventually realising that I'd copied them from a Linux system without checking for things like restricted file names, and sure enough some of them had colons. If it's a Samba restriction, then it's not in the protocol - maybe there's an option that can be set in the Samba server? -Nye -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Tammo Schuelke on 15/10/08 11:15, wrote: -Original Message- From: Adam Hardy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:05 PM To: List Debian User Subject: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions Hi, I created a samba share on one of my debian boxes with a ext3 file system and unfortunately I can't write files with certain file names from Mac OSX. This disrupts the back-up process which takes about an hour every time to fail when I want to try it out again. For instance, there is one file name like this: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp which has a colon in it that I guess is the problem. After finding out all I could about Mac file systems and names, my conclusion is that macs are pretty special, especially their file systems. Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? Have you tried creating a file with a colon in its name by hand? I just tested it, both ext3 and samba don't have a problem with it (only Windows clients don't like it). With which error message does it fail? Blast! I thought I was being clever and because I didn't want to confuse the issue, I actually changed that file name above. Originally the dialog box error message on the mac had a slash instead of a colon: 2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786/ABPerson.abcdp I thought, uh-huh, let's find it then - but when I searched for it, all I found was the name with the colon, so I figured that must be the problem file and that the error handling had somehow 'escaped' the colon into a slash. So I can only assume that there was some sort of temporary file with the slash in it then, which disappeared. Yet I do seem to have a file name with a colon in it, despite that link from XvsXP. Here's the output from find: Last login: Wed Oct 15 10:03:23 on console Welcome to Darwin! sylvie-computer:~ sylvie$ find . -name *ABPerson* ./Library/Application Support/AddressBook/.skIndex.ABPerson.lockN ./Library/Application Support/AddressBook/ABPerson.skIndexInverted ./Library/Application Support/Quicksilver/PlugIns/iChat Module.qsplugin/Contents/Resources/ABPerson-Fez.h ./Library/Caches/com.apple.AddressBook/MetaData/2AE2EAEE-57AC-46D8-B619-C2167D4C6786:ABPerson.abcdp ./Library/Caches/com.apple.AddressBook/MetaData/4B1A764D-C182-4200-88DB-0686716AAB89:ABPerson.abcdp sylvie-computer:~ sylvie$ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 filesystem and file name restrictions
Adam writes: Is there a basis for the file name restrictions on ext3, i.e. can I say, well ext3 is based on a standard, so I'm going to restrict the file names on macs, otherwise they won't be backed up? You can use any printable character other than '/'. ':; is entirely legal and often used: try 'locate ::'. -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 Overwritted by Ext3
Armin ranjbar wrote: Dear all , there is an Ext3 partition which have been mkfs.ext3 by mistake , there are very few inodes available in file system now but tools like lde shows that majority of data is still available on disk , the problem is that how its possible to take back disconnected ext3 blocks in filesystem as file ? how can i put them in lost and found ? do you know any solution ? If you have run mkfs.ext3 while the partition was mounted, then an fsck might put stuff in lost+found. It happened to me once when I mistyped the disk name (hda5 instead of hdb5). That was several years ago so I don't remember whether it was ext3 or ext2. -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. -- Albert Einstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 Overwritted by Ext3
Raj Kiran Grandhi wrote: Armin ranjbar wrote: Dear all , there is an Ext3 partition which have been mkfs.ext3 by mistake , there are very few inodes available in file system now but tools like lde shows that majority of data is still available on disk , the problem is that how its possible to take back disconnected ext3 blocks in filesystem as file ? how can i put them in lost and found ? do you know any solution ? If you have run mkfs.ext3 while the partition was mounted, then an fsck might put stuff in lost+found. It happened to me once when I mistyped the disk name (hda5 instead of hdb5). That was several years ago so I don't remember whether it was ext3 or ext2. Just wanted to add that you might want to use dd to make a complete copy of your disk and work on a copy (or a copy of the copy if you are sufficiently paranoid about your data) -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. -- Albert Einstein -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 x Gparted - RESOLVIDO
Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Conforme a saída do parted, há uma certa confusão no particionamento. Veja que a partição 3, extendida, deveria ir dos 16GB até 80GB que é o final do disco, mas tem apenas 4GB !!!. Minha sugestão é que refaça as partições 3, 4 e 5, corrigindo a 3 para os valores corretos, eliminando a 4 que passaria a ser 5 ou 6 conforme sua necessidade e os sistemas já instalados. CR 2008/6/5 David F. A. B. Fante [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil Olá pessoal, Consegui resolver este problema. Existe um comando especialmente criado para estas situações é o resize2fs -p /dispositivo que está presente no e2fsprogs. Antes de executá-lo é necessário rodar o e2fsck -f sobre os dispositivos. Abraço a todos. Pedro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 x Gparted - RESOLVIDO
Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Faz a gentileza de nos mostrar como ficou a saída do comando parted -l ou fdisk -l . Obrigado. CR 2008/6/6 Pedro Debian [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Conforme a saída do parted, há uma certa confusão no particionamento. Veja que a partição 3, extendida, deveria ir dos 16GB até 80GB que é o final do disco, mas tem apenas 4GB !!!. Minha sugestão é que refaça as partições 3, 4 e 5, corrigindo a 3 para os valores corretos, eliminando a 4 que passaria a ser 5 ou 6 conforme sua necessidade e os sistemas já instalados. CR 2008/6/5 David F. A. B. Fante [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante --To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil Olá pessoal, Consegui resolver este problema. Existe um comando especialmente criado para estas situações é o resize2fs -p /dispositivo que está presente no e2fsprogs. Antes de executá-lo é necessário rodar o e2fsck -f sobre os dispositivos. Abraço a todos. Pedro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil Olá Carlos, A saída do parted -l não mudou nada em relação a que havia enviado no email anterior pois isso já estava correto reconhecendo os 60GB (partição 4): Number Start End SizeType File system Sinalizador 1 32,3kB 1003MB 1003MB primária linux-swap 2 1003MB 16,0GB 15,0GB primária ext3 3 16,0GB 20,0GB 4006MB extendida 5 16,0GB 16,5GB 502MB lógica ext3 boot 4 20,0GB 80,0GB 60,0GB primária ext3 O que foi resolvido, é o reconhecimento no restante do espaço adcionado à partição depois que executei o Gparted para os 60GB: Sist. Arq.Tam Usad Disp Uso% Montado em /dev/sda4 55G 13G 40G 24% / Através do resize2fs os Linux conseguir enxergar o espaço adicional. Pedro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 x Gparted - RESOLVIDO
Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Até agora não tive problemas no uso do Gparted, semelhante a esse citado por ti. A diferença, e que até certo fica incompreensível para mim, é a existência de uma partição extendida com 4GB. Caso tenhas interesse na discussão, me diz como esses 4GB estão sendo usado, qual o file system, etc. Mais uma vez obrigado pela atenção. CR PS: Desculpa minha insistência. O que aprendi até hoje é resultado dessa constante busca de resposta para coisas/problemas que não compreendo. Olá Carlos, Neste mesmo hd tenho outro S.O instalado. Por algum motivo que ainda não consegui descobrir aquela partição de 4GB ficou inacessível. Mas como estou trabalhando com outra partição não dei muita importância para ela. Mas realmente, esta partição está sobrando ai. Provavelmente eu a irei excluir futuramente. Obrigado. Pedro 2008/6/6 Pedro Debian [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Faz a gentileza de nos mostrar como ficou a saída do comando parted -l ou fdisk -l . Obrigado. CR 2008/6/6 Pedro Debian [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Carlos Ribeiro escreveu: Conforme a saída do parted, há uma certa confusão no particionamento. Veja que a partição 3, extendida, deveria ir dos 16GB até 80GB que é o final do disco, mas tem apenas 4GB !!!. Minha sugestão é que refaça as partições 3, 4 e 5, corrigindo a 3 para os valores corretos, eliminando a 4 que passaria a ser 5 ou 6 conforme sua necessidade e os sistemas já instalados. CR 2008/6/5 David F. A. B. Fante [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante --To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil Olá pessoal, Consegui resolver este problema. Existe um comando especialmente criado para estas situações é o resize2fs -p /dispositivo que está presente no e2fsprogs. Antes de executá-lo é necessário rodar o e2fsck -f sobre os dispositivos. Abraço a todos. Pedro --To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil Olá Carlos, A saída do parted -l não mudou nada em relação a que havia enviado no email anterior pois isso já estava correto
Re: Ext3 x Gparted
Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 x Gparted
David F. A. B. Fante escreveu: Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante Olá André, Seguem as informações que vc pediu. Esta é a partição que executei o gparted df -h Sist. Arq.Tam Usad Disp Uso% Montado em /dev/sda4 24G 13G 11G 54% / tmpfs 938M 0 938M 0% /dev/shm Abaixo vai a saída do parted -l /dev/sda. Pode verificar que a partição 4 é exibida como 60 Gb mas o linux está reconhecendo apeans os 24 Gb anteriores. Number Start End SizeType File system Sinalizador 1 32,3kB 1003MB 1003MB primária linux-swap 2 1003MB 16,0GB 15,0GB primária ext3 3 16,0GB 20,0GB 4006MB extendida 5 16,0GB 16,5GB 502MB lógica ext3 boot 4 20,0GB 80,0GB 60,0GB primária ext3 Desde já muito obrigado. Pedro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 x Gparted
Conforme a saída do parted, há uma certa confusão no particionamento. Veja que a partição 3, extendida, deveria ir dos 16GB até 80GB que é o final do disco, mas tem apenas 4GB !!!. Minha sugestão é que refaça as partições 3, 4 e 5, corrigindo a 3 para os valores corretos, eliminando a 4 que passaria a ser 5 ou 6 conforme sua necessidade e os sistemas já instalados. CR 2008/6/5 David F. A. B. Fante [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pedro Debian escreveu: Olá pessoal, Através do Gparted eu transformei duas partições em uma grande. Nesta partição já está o SO instalado. Qdo executo o fdisk/cfdisk sobre a partição, ele reconhece o novo tamanho. Mas o sistema ainda está mostrando o tamanho anterior antes da execução do procedimento. Tem alguma maneira de fazer o linux reconhecer a nova estrutura? Amigo, isso é bem estranho, como eu não sei como o sistema está lhe informando espaço em disco, no terminal digite: # df E poste o resultado, aproveite e poste o resultado do fdisk, assim ficará mais fácil de a lista te ajudar. Desde já obrigado. Abraços... pedro David F A B Fante -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- CARLOS RIBEIRO Linux-User: 183.572 Machine: 195.669 São Luís - Maranhão - Brasil
Re: Ext3 file recovery
Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: Is there a way to recover single file at ext3 file system? Is it usable in Debian Etch, if there is a way? If you mean recovering a deleted file, then no. The ext3 file system does not allow for recovery of deleted files. George. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 file recovery
George Borisov wrote: Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: Is there a way to recover single file at ext3 file system? Is it usable in Debian Etch, if there is a way? If you mean recovering a deleted file, then no. The ext3 file system does not allow for recovery of deleted files. George. Yes, I meant file deletion. Tero Mäntyvaara -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 file recovery
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/21/08 06:56, Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: George Borisov wrote: Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: Is there a way to recover single file at ext3 file system? Is it usable in Debian Etch, if there is a way? If you mean recovering a deleted file, then no. The ext3 file system does not allow for recovery of deleted files. George. Yes, I meant file deletion. If you unmounted the volumed quickly after the deletion, then Google for ext3grep. It *may* recover your file. If you did *not* quickly unmount the partition, then all is lost. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA We want... a Shrubbery!! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIDIU/S9HxQb37XmcRAivwAJ4ySElzKFiM6F0s83e/N0l4q+q/mwCg4gxQ TzZRwnGJLBEt89oS+5mhW1s= =shGB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 file recovery
Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: Yes, I meant file deletion. From http://batleth.sapienti-sat.org/projects/FAQs/ext3-faq.html --- Q: How can I recover (undelete) deleted files from my ext3 partition? Actually, you can't! This is what one of the developers, Andreas Dilger, said about it: In order to ensure that ext3 can safely resume an unlink after a crash, it actually zeros out the block pointers in the inode, whereas ext2 just marks these blocks as unused in the block bitmaps and marks the inode as deleted and leaves the block pointers alone. Your only hope is to grep for parts of your files that have been deleted and hope for the best. --- :-( George. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 file recovery
On 2008-04-21 13:40 +0200, George Borisov wrote: Tero Mäntyvaara wrote: Is there a way to recover single file at ext3 file system? Is it usable in Debian Etch, if there is a way? If you mean recovering a deleted file, then no. The ext3 file system does not allow for recovery of deleted files. That's the official position, but read the following fascinating story by somebody who had not deleted a single file, but rather his whole home directory: http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/howto/undelete_ext3.html Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ext3 file recovery
Sven Joachim wrote: That's the official position, but read the following fascinating story by somebody who had not deleted a single file, but rather his whole home directory: http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlo17/howto/undelete_ext3.html OK, that's pretty cool - thanks. :-) George. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 hatası
TestDisk adında bi yazılımla sorunsuz kurtarabilirsiniz. Bunun icin knoppix yada benzeri bi çalışan cd ile bilgisayarınızı açıp Testdisk ile disk bolumunu kurtarabilirsiniz. http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk Dosya bazlı kurtarma yapmak istiyorsanız Bunun icin ben kucuk bi dokuman yazmıstım. O da: http://talat.uyarer.com/?p=30 Kolay Gelsin Sal, 2007-09-11 tarihinde 11:03 +0300 saatinde, Ayşe Dursun yazdı: merhaba bilgisayarımda 2 tane ntfs formatlı bölüm vardı. 2. bölüme linux kurayım derken komple diski sil ve kur demişim. %11 de iken makineyi direk kapattım. ilk bölümde önemli bilgilerim vardı. bunu nasıl kurtarabilirim. bilgileriniz için şimdiden teşekkürler... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 et options
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 02:51:13PM +0200, Sylvain Sauvage wrote: Franck Joncourt, dimanche 13 mai 2007, 13:15:58 CEST [...] Du coup, n'est il pas possible de creer un fichier de test avec un motif et une taille specifique sur la partition avec l'option dir_index. Ensuite, de desactiver cette option sur la partition, et de refaire la meme manipulation en ecrasant les anciennes donnees ? C'est juste une idee qui me passe par la tete. dir_index modifie la façon dont sont gérés les répertoires : utilisation d’arbres B (ou b-trees) pour le stockage des noms de fichiers et de sous-répertoires (au lieu d’une liste plate (?)). Pour faire un test à peu près utile, il faut donc créer un ou plusieurs répertoires, avec une grande quantité de fichiers ou de sous-répertoires. Mais il faut aussi bien choisir ses données de test. En effet, du point de vue théorique, il n’y a aucune question à se poser : on connaît le temps pris par une recherche, une insertion et une suppression (en gros, log(n) pour l’arbre B pour les trois opérations, et n pour une liste triée). Par contre, pour savoir si c’est utile pour toi dans la « vraie vie », il faut, d’une part, avoir des données qui ressemblent à celles que tu utilises tous les jours, que tu utilises le plus, avec une ressemblance suffisante dans la taille et l’organisation (nombre de fichiers par répertoires, noms...), et, d’autre part, faire des tests qui calquent les opérations que tu fais ou que tu comptes faire avec ces données. Sinon, tu fais juste une inutile vérification de ce que la théorie nous dit déjà, et, pire, un test d’une situation totalement artificielle. On c'est bien ecarte du thread de depart à cause de ma curiosité :p! A la base, gaetan voulait simplement savoir si le dir_index etait active sur une ou plusieurs partitions ext3. Je n'ai pas l'intention de mettre en place ce genre de tests, mais je voulais savoir comment il etait possible de verifier l'efficacite de l'option. En tout cas merci pour les infos. Bonne journee. -- Franck Joncourt http://www.debian.org http://smhteam.info/wiki/ GPG server : pgpkeys.mit.edu Fingerprint : C10E D1D0 EF70 0A2A CACF 9A3C C490 534E 75C0 89FE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ext3 et options
Franck Joncourt, dimanche 13 mai 2007, 13:15:58 CEST [...] Du coup, n'est il pas possible de creer un fichier de test avec un motif et une taille specifique sur la partition avec l'option dir_index. Ensuite, de desactiver cette option sur la partition, et de refaire la meme manipulation en ecrasant les anciennes donnees ? C'est juste une idee qui me passe par la tete. dir_index modifie la façon dont sont gérés les répertoires : utilisation d’arbres B (ou b-trees) pour le stockage des noms de fichiers et de sous-répertoires (au lieu d’une liste plate (?)). Pour faire un test à peu près utile, il faut donc créer un ou plusieurs répertoires, avec une grande quantité de fichiers ou de sous-répertoires. Mais il faut aussi bien choisir ses données de test. En effet, du point de vue théorique, il n’y a aucune question à se poser : on connaît le temps pris par une recherche, une insertion et une suppression (en gros, log(n) pour l’arbre B pour les trois opérations, et n pour une liste triée). Par contre, pour savoir si c’est utile pour toi dans la « vraie vie », il faut, d’une part, avoir des données qui ressemblent à celles que tu utilises tous les jours, que tu utilises le plus, avec une ressemblance suffisante dans la taille et l’organisation (nombre de fichiers par répertoires, noms...), et, d’autre part, faire des tests qui calquent les opérations que tu fais ou que tu comptes faire avec ces données. Sinon, tu fais juste une inutile vérification de ce que la théorie nous dit déjà, et, pire, un test d’une situation totalement artificielle. -- Sylvain Sauvage
Re: ext3 et options
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 12:25:04AM +0200, Sylvain Sauvage wrote: Franck Joncourt, dimanche 13 mai 2007, 00:03:32 CEST [...] Sur une partition non montee : Pour activer l'option dir_index : # tune2fs -O dir_index /dev/hdxx # e2fsc -D /dev/hdxx petite erreur de frappe au passage : e2fsck et pour l'enlever: # tune2fs -O ^dir_index /dev/hdxx C'est ce que me donne la man page, j'ai rien inventé :)! Pour faire un test à peu près fiable, il faut le faire sur le même système, le même disque, les mêmes données, écrites dans les mêmes conditions, le même ordre... C’est-à-dire, p.ex., en créant une partition de test dans laquelle on copie des données puis que l’on recrée en changeant l’option, pour y recopier les mêmes données et refaire les mêmes tests. Du coup, n'est il pas possible de creer un fichier de test avec un motif et une taille specifique sur la partition avec l'option dir_index. Ensuite, de desactiver cette option sur la partition, et de refaire la meme manipulation en ecrasant les anciennes donnees ? C'est juste une idee qui me passe par la tete. -- Franck Joncourt http://www.debian.org http://smhteam.info/wiki/ GPG server : pgpkeys.mit.edu Fingerprint : C10E D1D0 EF70 0A2A CACF 9A3C C490 534E 75C0 89FE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ext3 et options
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0200, Gaëtan PERRIER wrote: Salut, Est-il possible de connaître les options activées sur une partition ext3 (genre dir_index, etc.)? cat /etc/mtab c'est pas ce que tu cherches ? -- Franck Joncourt http://www.debian.org http://smhteam.info/wiki/ GPG server : pgpkeys.mit.edu Fingerprint : C10E D1D0 EF70 0A2A CACF 9A3C C490 534E 75C0 89FE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: ext3 et options
Le Sat, 12 May 2007 20:11:28 +0200 Franck Joncourt [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 07:40:31PM +0200, Gaëtan PERRIER wrote: Salut, Est-il possible de connaître les options activées sur une partition ext3 (genre dir_index, etc.)? cat /etc/mtab c'est pas ce que tu cherches ? Non, ça ça donne les options de montage pas les options du système de fichier lui-même. Gaëtan -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 et options
OoO Pendant le repas du samedi 12 mai 2007, vers 19:40, Gaëtan PERRIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: Salut, Est-il possible de connaître les options activées sur une partition ext3 (genre dir_index, etc.)? tune2fs -l tapartition -- panic(Tell me what a watchpoint trap is, and I'll then deal with such a beast...); 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/arch/arch/sparc/kernel/traps.c -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 et options
Le Sat, 12 May 2007 20:20:21 +0200 Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: OoO Pendant le repas du samedi 12 mai 2007, vers 19:40, Gaëtan PERRIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: Salut, Est-il possible de connaître les options activées sur une partition ext3 (genre dir_index, etc.)? tune2fs -l tapartition Merci! Gaëtan -- Lisez la FAQ de la liste avant de poser une question : http://wiki.debian.net/?DebianFrench Vous pouvez aussi ajouter le mot ``spam'' dans vos champs From et Reply-To: To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ext3 et options
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:18:50PM +0200, Gaëtan PERRIER wrote: Le Sat, 12 May 2007 20:20:21 +0200 Vincent Bernat [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit: OoO Pendant le repas du samedi 12 mai 2007, vers 19:40, Gaëtan PERRIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] disait: Salut, Est-il possible de connaître les options activées sur une partition ext3 (genre dir_index, etc.)? tune2fs -l tapartition Juste par curiosite, tu es a la recherche de quelles informations et pour en faire quoi ? -- Franck Joncourt http://www.debian.org http://smhteam.info/wiki/ GPG server : pgpkeys.mit.edu Fingerprint : C10E D1D0 EF70 0A2A CACF 9A3C C490 534E 75C0 89FE signature.asc Description: Digital signature
