Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..and after a journal death, and fsck, the raid set will be able
to re-establish itself, no? Or does the journal do both/all disks
in a raid set?
The FS doesn't know or care about RAID-anything, as far as I know.
Doesn't the FS just tell /dev/hda1, /dev/sda1, or
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:01, Rich Puhek wrote:
Ted will know a lot more about this than I do, but I'd think that if the
first two superblocks are corrupt, the likelihood of superblock number 3
or whatever being good is pretty low compared to the odds that the
drive/parition is shot. Perhaps
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 03:54:07 +1000,
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:01, Rich Puhek wrote:
Ted will know a lot more about this than I do, but I'd think that if
the first two superblocks are corrupt, the likelihood of superblock
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:04:19AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
If you have random disk corruptions happening as often as you are, no
filesystem is going to be able to help you. The only question is how
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:03:17 -0400,
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:04:19AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
If you have random disk
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:36:32AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
But for an unattended server, most of the time it's probably better to
force the system to reboot so you can restore service ASAP.
..even for raid-1 disks??? _Is_ there a combination of raid-1 and
journalling fs'es for linux
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell Coker) [2003.09.10 20:16]:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 10:04, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I still believe in raid-1, but, ext3fs???
..how does xfs, jfs and Reiserfs compare?
ReiserFS has many situations where file system corruption can make operations
such as find /
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:22, Cameron Moore wrote:
Having a file system decide to panic the kernel because your mount
options instructed it to (ext3) is one thing. Having the file system
driver corrupt random kernel memory and cause an Oops (Reiser) is
another. The ReiserFS team's response
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:05:24 -0400,
Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 07:24:27PM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
What happens on error conditions can be set through tune2fs or as
a mount option. Having it remount read-only is probably
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:17, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I have had a few cases of ext3fs'es, even on raid-1, going
read-only on errors, what do you guys use to bring them back
into service?
What happens on error conditions can be set through tune2fs or as a mount
option. Having it remount read-only
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:20:12 +1000,
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 00:17, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
..I have had a few cases of ext3fs'es, even on raid-1, going
read-only on errors, what do you guys use to bring them back
into service?
11 matches
Mail list logo
