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 us
On 2013-11-09, 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 l
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Jude DaShiell 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 mod
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 and watch the fun. This will
use badblocks nondestructively and set off a repair operation which
should end up with you h
Josef Huber 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 re
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
Ar
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 befo
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:45:52 -0400
Frank wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
> Stephen Powell 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 r
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:01:08 -0400
Paul Cartwright 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 i
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:02:54 -0400
Tom H wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Stephen Powell 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 th
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:39:17 -0400 (EDT)
Stephen Powell 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 ?
>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Stephen Powell 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 Ub
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 should
know that!
Josef Huber
Betreff:
Re: ext3 file system
Von:
Stephen Powell
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?) proble
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:41:32 -0400 (EDT)
Stephen Powell 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 everyti
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
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
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=
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
Bloc
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
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 e
"Masatran / Deepak, R." 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 acc
> 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,
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 consequen
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,
2009/3/12 Bob Cox :
> 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
>> 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 - w
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
>> > 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
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
Why so many difficult answe
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. Th
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
> Why so many difficult answers?
> If you nor
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 l
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
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 dat
>> 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
(inc
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 l
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
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
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 sma
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 lapto
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 wo
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 F
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
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 t
.
> -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:
&g
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 use
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 o
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
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
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:
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 1
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 i
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:
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
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 ext
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 UNSUBSC
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 delet
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
-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,
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 mean
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 P
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 22:54 +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Thankyou so much :-) That is good news.
> How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your observation?
ext3 is fast, but mainly is slower than ReiserFS, JFS and XFS.
JFS is very fast. It has some problem when working with
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:54:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your
> observation?
>
I din't try XFS; I forget the sp
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:54:28PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about JFS's Speed compared to ext3, ReiserFS. XFS etc in your
> observation?
>
I din't try XFS; I forget the specifics but there seem to have been
problems. Even on my
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:58:41PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> >> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third part
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:58:41PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> >> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party.
> >> the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www
> >> df -h Shows
On 4/6/07, Douglas Allan Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party.
>
> the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www
>
> df -h Shows /var/www is only 394 GB
> whereas lvdisplay shows /dev/vg1/w
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:52:30PM +0530, Siju George wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a Server Installed with LVM by a third party.
>
> the /var/www is on LV /dev/vg1/www
>
> df -h Shows /var/www is only 394 GB
> whereas lvdisplay shows /dev/vg1/www to be 400 GB
>
I use JFS for everything, running Etc
Am 2007-03-25 23:00:01, schrieb Pim Bliek:
> Hi
>
> I need some help. I think I screwed my /var while trying to resize it
> online.. :(
> Nice these new features in ext3... NOT :(
>
> Is there anyone out here that is willing to help on this one? A
> filesystem/ext3 guru? Preferable someone in the
I have 2.5 GB of data in lost+found...
Is there any way to retrieve this data and place it back into the
proper place? Automatically? (I don't see myself sorting out several
thousands of files by hand)
On 3/25/07, Pim Bliek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I need some help. I think I screwed my /
Pim Bliek wrote:
Hi
I need some help. I think I screwed my /var while trying to resize it
online.. :(
Nice these new features in ext3... NOT :(
Is there anyone out here that is willing to help on this one? A
filesystem/ext3 guru? Preferable someone in the Netherlands as well,
but any help is ap
On Sun, 2007-03-25 at 23:00 +0200, Pim Bliek wrote:
> Hi
>
> I need some help. I think I screwed my /var while trying to resize it
> online.. :(
> Nice these new features in ext3... NOT :(
>
> Is there anyone out here that is willing to help on this one? A
> filesystem/ext3 guru? Preferable someo
On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:41, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 02/01/07 16:18, José Pablo Fernández wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wednesday 31 January 2007 20:20, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> >> Its been years since I ran ext* but I don't think it can hurt to do
> >> another fsck with the filesystem to
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 07:18:53PM -0300, Jos? Pablo Fern?ndez wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 20:20, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> > Its been years since I ran ext* but I don't think it can hurt to do
> > another fsck with the filesystem totally unmounted. That means that if
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/07 16:18, José Pablo Fernández wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 31 January 2007 20:20, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
>> Its been years since I ran ext* but I don't think it can hurt to do
>> another fsck with the filesystem totally unmounted. T
Hello,
On Wednesday 31 January 2007 20:20, Douglas Allan Tutty wrote:
> Its been years since I ran ext* but I don't think it can hurt to do
> another fsck with the filesystem totally unmounted. That means that if
> this is the / filesystem, you need to use a rescue media not just the
> boot-time
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 02:25:50PM -0300, Jos? Pablo Fern?ndez wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a server which was turned off (unplugged) without halting and that
> seems to have broken the FS. I managed to fsck it and mount it and now it's
> working, but I've got these errors:
>
> kernel: EXT3-fs erro
On 13/06/06, Bob McGowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's been a while since I've dealt with these, so memory is a bit rusty. You may want to follow up with a Wikipedia or general web search, formore detailed data. I tried 'BIOS disk size limit', and one of the
sites (http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/bio
It's been a while since I've dealt with these, so memory is a bit rusty.
You may want to follow up with a Wikipedia or general web search, for
more detailed data. I tried 'BIOS disk size limit', and one of the
sites (http://www.oberon.ethz.ch/bios.html) provided this bit:
Limit Capacity
On 13/06/06, Bob McGowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*Important note*: grub "suffers" the same limits as the BIOS does. Soif your disk is large, you will need to create your boot partition *and*the Linux root partition near the beginning of the disk.
I thank you kindly for both posts. They have be
On re-reading my post, I realize there's one thing I forgot to mention.
The scenario I suggested has you installing the XFS based system with
separate ext[23] /boot partition as the second step. This means that
the install process, the second time around, will find the first
installation and
A high level overview of the boot process may help in understanding how
the /boot partition/directory is used. This is not exact or perfect,
but should be good enough to answer the basic question (as I understand
it). So here goes:
Power on self test (POST)
-> load and run BIOS code
A high level overview of the boot process may help in understanding how
the /boot partition/directory is used. This is not exact or perfect,
but should be good enough to answer the basic question (as I understand
it). So here goes:
Power on self test (POST)
-> load and run BIOS cod
On 11/06/06, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/06/06, Marcelo Chiapparini <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sat, 2006-06-10 at 19:23 -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:> Is it true that this has been fixed in GRUB
0.97? I think> I read that some where.I don't know. I use sarge, which use GRU
On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 07:00:55 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andy Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> Nate Bargmann wrote:
> [snip]
> > This is a bit simplistic. Hyper-Threading (or
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:05:20 -0400
"David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/06/06, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Finally, the swap. I'm not too sure what these swap-files are,
> > > but it seems to me that a swap partiton is quite acceptable as a
> > > just-in-ca
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Nate Bargmann wrote:
[snip]
> This is a bit simplistic. Hyper-Threading (or more correctly,
> simultaneous multithreading (SMT)) is almost always a win because
> at
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:14:41PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > I have been considering an HT based machine and would like to
> > learn of any potential pitfalls.
>
> The h/w emulates 2 CPUs. Thus, even more than a single CPU
> switching contexts, the HT-enabled CPU adds t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006 Jun 10 17:10
> -0500]:
>> A swap *file* does the same thing a swap *partition* does.
[snip]
> This begs some objective test data, not opinion. HT is being
> touted as a feature of high
* David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006 Jun 10 17:10 -0500]:
>
> A swap *file* does the same thing a swap *partition* does.
>
> Amazing, no?
>
> I understand that part. I do not understand why one would be better than an
> other. Nor
> have you indicated what guidelines I can use
On 10/06/06, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, the swap. I'm not too sure what these swap-files are,> but it seems to me that a swap partiton is quite acceptable as a> just-in-case. I'm simply unsure as to how large I should make it.
A swap *file* does the same thing a swap *partiti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David R. Litwin wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm again posting out of context, due to many god posts.
>
> I think I'm going to stick with the "standard" ext3. XFS, though
> I'm sure an excellent fs, seems to be not as crash-resilient as
> ext3. As to the suggest
>I think I'm going to stick with the "standard" ext3. XFS, though I'm sure an excellent fs, seems to be not as crash-resilient as ext3.I've just had a thought: Since I already have a partitioned hard drive, why don't I try both and see which is better? Would GRUB be happy
with one partition being
I'm again posting out of context, due to many god posts.I think I'm going to stick with the "standard" ext3. XFS, though I'm sure an excellent fs, seems to be not as crash-resilient as ext3. As to the suggested lvm and CryptoFS, I don't think I need them. It seems that it may be the way of the fut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Micha Feigin wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:51:53 -0500 Ron Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> David R. Litwin wrote:
[snip]
>
> Note that there are no swap partitions. This is because I use
> swap *files*, which give you much more flexibilit
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 02:51:53 -0500
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David R. Litwin wrote:
> > Hallo friendly list:
> >
> > I've decided that windows has to go and a swap has to come. So, I'm a gonna
> > clear the hard drive of my Toshi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alvin Oga wrote:
> hi ya david
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:
>
[snip]
>> I do _listen_ to a lot of music (an
> increasing amount in flac).
>
> xfs is good for lots of small files ( thousands of 2KB sized files )
>
> xfs is NOT good
hi ya david
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006, David R. Litwin wrote:
> It seems to me, still, that though XFS is faster
ext2 is the fastest fs out of ext2, ext3, reiserfs, xfs, jfs
- read, write speed
- xfs, jfs, reiserfs is faster for formatting
> (en general! Don't lop off my head for mak
Let me start thus: I've gotten so much valuable feed-back that it is illogical to do my normal shuffle-post. Hopefully what I write shan't be woefully out of context. Here goes.I appologise that I neglected to give you the specs of my system, dolt that I am. The laptop has a
3.06 GHz Mobile P4 wit
1 - 100 of 398 matches
Mail list logo
