Re: [expert] Reiserfs stability (was: Konqueror - https 'dies unexpectedly')
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 09:44 pm, Civileme wrote: > To make it happen you install a / only system with lotsa unused space. The > / can be reiser--that's automatically a notail mount. But, if I understand it correctly, you can have a root reiser partition mounted without the notail option if you have a separate partition for /boot. I have a separate, small /boot partition, and made it an ext2 partition, since there is no advantage to making it reiserfs. -- Stephen
Re: [expert] Reiserfs stability (was: Konqueror - https 'dies unexpectedly')
Hi, > To make it happen you install a / only system with lotsa unused space. The > / can be reiser--that's automatically a notail mount. Oh dear. My system only has / and /home partitions, both are reiser. If the / is being automatically mounted notail anyway, it seems odd that it's the one which has *more* problems - presumably /home is being hit quite hard with email/web cache use etc so usage shouldn't be too wildly different. I guess I'll have to wait for a new release of reiserfsprogs and have another go with --rebuild-db on root. thanks, tom -- ... "Things past redress and now with me past care" - William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
Re: [expert] Reiserfs stability (was: Konqueror - https 'dies unexpectedly')
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 09:19, Tom Lawton wrote: > Hi, > > > Want to make Reiser more stable? Use only notail mounts. Of course > > that's a LOT more stable. > > Is this a suitable option for use on a bog standard workstation Manrdake > system? I know it's more space hungry (anyone know how much?) - is it also > slower? > > I'm imagining/hoping Reiser will get bulletproof fairly quickly - so I'm > keeping close on the upgrades of kernel and tools. However, I'm getting a > few bad_stat_data (x is used by at least two files) and wrong lengths > reported by reiserfsck (3.x.0j-2mdk), which it refuses to fix with -x or > -o, and even a --rebuild-db doesn't fix the stat_data errors! Any advice? > Otherwise the system seems a lot more stable since kernel 2.4.4. > > thanks, > > tom Well with current install tools it isn't easy to do. It is FASTER, but less efficient on storage. How much less? Worst case is less than double required, and for that you need a host of files that are one block plus one byte. The B-tree overhead is the same or less. To make it happen you install a / only system with lotsa unused space. The / can be reiser--that's automatically a notail mount. Then you create /var /usr /home and other partitions manually, and format them reiser. Then you edit /etc/fstab and make them mount points like /spusr /spvar /sphome /dev/hda7 /spusr reiserfs notail 1 2 /dev/hda8 /sphome reiserfs notail 1 2 /dev/hda9 /spvar reiserfs notail 1 2 Of course the partition designations will vary with your mileage. Mount them and mount /spusr && cp -a /usr/* /spusr && umount /spusr mount /spvar && cp -a /var/* /spvar && umount /spvar mount /sphome && cp -a /home/* /sphome && umount /sphome Now edit /etc/fstab again and remove the 'sp' from the mount points then mv /home /oldhome && mkdir /home && mount /home mv /var /oldvar && mkdir /var && mount /var mv /usr /oldusr && mkdir /usr && mount /usr Delete the /oldxxx directories at your leisure, bring in urpmi or similar or just use your install CD and run Update to load the amount of system you want. Civileme Please note that if you do not use the install disk in update mode, you never even need to reboot.
Re[2]: [expert] Reiserfs stability (was: Konqueror - https 'dies unexpectedly')
Tom Lawton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > Want to make Reiser more stable? Use only notail mounts. Of course that's > > a LOT more stable. > > Is this a suitable option for use on a bog standard workstation Manrdake > system? I know it's more space hungry (anyone know how much?) - is it also > slower? > > I'm imagining/hoping Reiser will get bulletproof fairly quickly Ok, I've been watching the discussion here for a while - and now its time for me to ask: So, there's reiser, jfs (is that the name of the journaling file system?), raid (which won't do what reiser does for you), and I thought something else. Oh - there it is - 'xfs'. (Did I miss any others?) Here's the question: If reiser has these kinds of problems I've been seeing, has anyone tried any of the others and what did they think??? Thanks! (If you want to, just reply to me and I'll 'summarize' the answers (i.e. quote just the relevant part (or maybe most of the reply ;-))) (Thus, if you reply to me and do NOT want your answers included in the 'summary' LET ME KNOW!) rc Rusty Carruth Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (480) 345-3621 SnailMail: Schlumberger ATE FAX: (480) 345-8793 7855 S. River Parkway, Suite 116 Ham: N7IKQ @ 146.82+,pl 162.2 Tempe, AZ 85284-1825 ICBM: 33 20' 44"N 111 53' 47"W
Re: [expert] Reiserfs stability (was: Konqueror - https 'dies unexpectedly')
Hi, > Want to make Reiser more stable? Use only notail mounts. Of course that's > a LOT more stable. Is this a suitable option for use on a bog standard workstation Manrdake system? I know it's more space hungry (anyone know how much?) - is it also slower? I'm imagining/hoping Reiser will get bulletproof fairly quickly - so I'm keeping close on the upgrades of kernel and tools. However, I'm getting a few bad_stat_data (x is used by at least two files) and wrong lengths reported by reiserfsck (3.x.0j-2mdk), which it refuses to fix with -x or -o, and even a --rebuild-db doesn't fix the stat_data errors! Any advice? Otherwise the system seems a lot more stable since kernel 2.4.4. thanks, tom -- ... "The ripest fruit falls first" - William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
