Re: [reiserfs-list] When will Reiserfs be ready?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:41, Hans Reiser wrote: yad stuf wrote: When will users be assured that they won't be left in the dust with some older version of ReiserFS, supported only by half-beta-half-release, quota and NFS -incapable, non-GPL'ed filesystem code; a The code is GPL'd, NFS works, and it is stable code. I've found that ReiserFS is very, very stable (no problems at all). But is it actually marked as stable in the 2.4 kernels? difficult-to-use and apparently buggy reiserfsck See most recent release of reiserfsck. Best part is that you don't have to run fsck under most circumstances. (compared to e2fsck) and demands by Hans Reiser for $25 to say anything? and RedHat charges you how much for a support call? Microsoft? See attachment. And yad stuff should know that $25 let's you talk straight to the developers -- you can't get better support than that. pesarif
[reiserfs-list] Checking a ReiserFS filesystem 2
Hello! I've finally bothered to reiserfsck my 600MB ReiserFS root partition on a Pentium 166. I typed: mount / -o remount,ro reiserfsck -ixo /dev/hda6 (or something along those lines...note that I had to mount root as read-only instead of booting from the mandrake CD (whereby root would not be mounted at all) because the mandrake CD didn't boot properly for some reason). Anyway, I get the following output: Will read-only check consistency of the partition Will fix what can be fixed w/o --rebuild-tree Will put log info to 'stderr' Do you want to run this program?[N/Yes] (note need to type Yes):Yes Filesystem seems mounted read-only. Skipping journal replay.. --fix-fixable ignored Fetching on-disk bitmap..done Checking S+tree..ok Comparing bitmaps..free block count 1515 mismatches with a correct one 1968. byte 14001: bm1: bm2 3f byte 14002: bm1: 5f bm2 5c byte 14870: bm1: bm2 3f byte 14871: bm1: bm2 fff8 byte 14893: bm1: bm2 ff83 byte 14903: bm1: bm2 f byte 14906: bm1: bm2 1 byte 14947: bm1: bm2 3f byte 14948: bm1: bm2 1 byte 14968: bm1: bm2 ff9f byte 14989: bm1: bm2 fff3 byte 15002: bm1: bm2 ffc7 byte 15019: bm1: bm2 ff8f byte 15030: bm1: bm2 fffb byte 15031: bm1: bm2 ff81 byte 15037: bm1: bm2 3 byte 18839: bm1: 7f bm2 78 byte 18840: bm1: bm2 fffb And more of the same. Does anyone know what this means? on-disk bitmap does not match to the correct one. 149 bytes differ ok Checking Semantic tree.../dev/initctlfile 5 2746 has too big file size sd_size 384 - fixed to 0 /lib/modules/2.4.3-20mdk/kernel/drivers/char/ftape/compressor/zft-compressor.o.g/var/spool/postfix/public/qmgrfile 52418 30678 has too big file size sd_size 1 - fixed to 0 /pickupfile 52418 30676 has too big file size sd_size 1 - fixed to 0 /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.0/i386-linux/Gtk/Gdk/ImlibImage/Instal/GdkImlibType/X11R6/lib/X11/icewm/themes/strangedreams/taskbar/.xvpics/taskbuttonminimized.xp/share/doc/ghostscript-5.50/HPDeskJetPPA/pnm2ppa/rhs-printfilters/ps-to-printer./applnk-mdk/Applications/Development/Development environments/QT Designer.deskto/Configuration/Printing/Head alignment and nozzle cleaning pages for Z22, Z32 etc. etc. etc. What do these lines mean? In particular the last one (really long - so long that I hate to shorten it down for this email). 1. So how do I fix these problems? 2. If ReiserFS is a journaling filesystem, then how come these errors could occur? 3. e2fsck was always easier... Many thanks, pesarif
[reiserfs-list] Hash functions?
Does anyone know the difference between the r5, tea and rupasov hash functions in mkreiserfs 3.x.0i? Which one gives the best performance? Thanks, pesarif
