On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:42:21PM -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2002 at 11:22am, Isaac To wrote:
>
> :> "Matthias" == Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :
> :Matthias> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use
> :Matthias> for many years and
It was a mixup betwin reiserfs and automount, I am not sure which one
is responsible or if it is a joint venture, it seemed to just remove
the link to the root folder somehow.
I am afraid I don't feel like debugging it though, other then that, I
am running reiserfs for some time now on to computer
It's hard to say the following is related to reiserfs. I used reiserfs
for half a year on two computers. It works perfectly.
Qian
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 03:52:36AM -0800, Micha Feigin wrote:
> I had some problems with it actually, although I am not sure if they
> were reiserfs specific.
> I tried
I had some problems with it actually, although I am not sure if they
were reiserfs specific.
I tried using automount to mount cdrom under /cdrom (which means the
root is / and stub or watever its called was cdrom).
Had some problems with disabling it, and when I reboot the computer
crashed and when
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:44:06PM -0500, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> The problem with xfs_repair is that it can't be used on a mounted
> filesystem (even mounted read-only).
It's the same thing for reiserfs; reiserfsck --check has to be done on an
unmounted filesystem.
I had problems on reiserf
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13PM -0800, nate wrote:
> perhaps this is why reiserfs does the same, it's nice to be able to
> mark blocks as bad, but whenever I see bad blocks, I get ready for
> an RMA, because most likely when bad blocks start showing up on the
> filesystem itself, the drive has a
csj said:
> So what do you do when the system complains about filesystem
> errors on boot-up? A possible situation calling for fsck would be
> when you have a bad cable or maybe two ide disks with
> incompatible DMA/PIO settings. Sorry, if I parsed your statement
> incorrectly.
I've never had thi
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:20:30 -0800 (PST),
nate wrote:
>
> Vincent Lefevre said:
> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13 -0800, nate wrote:
>
> > Then, why is fsck necessary with ext3?
>
> tradititional fsck should not be with ext3's journalling turned
> on (sometimes people forget to mount it with
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:42:21PM -0500, Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2002 at 11:22am, Isaac To wrote:
>
> :> "Matthias" == Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> :
> :Matthias> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use
> :Matthias> for many years and
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:16:26PM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> I can confirm: I lost data because of reiserfs. I'll never use it again.
>
Could you please tell us what happened to your data lost?
Qian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Con
On 26 Nov 2002 at 11:22am, Isaac To wrote:
:> "Matthias" == Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:Matthias> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use
:Matthias> for many years and is well tested.
:
:You probably cannot infer the stability of ext3 from that
> "Vincent" == Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Vincent> Then, why is fsck necessary with ext3?
In a perfect world where there is no filesystem code bug, it is not needed.
Now come to the real world again.
Regards,
Isaac.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
> "Matthias" == Matthias Hentges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthias> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use
Matthias> for many years and is well tested.
You probably cannot infer the stability of ext3 from that of ext2. The
layout has been made mostly compati
Cameron Hutchison writes:
> This was in response to the fsck.xfs man page that says it does nothing.
> I was too hasty in saying this. There is another tool called xfs_repair
> that is used to repair XFS filesystems.
The fsck.xfs man page should direct the reader to xfs_repair.
--
John Hasler
[E
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:18:28AM +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> There is another tool called xfs_repair that is used to repair XFS
> filesystems.
The problem with xfs_repair is that it can't be used on a mounted
filesystem (even mounted read-only). This means, of course, that if
your root fi
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 12:18, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> In a previous email to this list I stated:
>
> > The authors of XFS seem to think that because it is a journalling
> > filesystem, a filesystem repair tool is not necessary.
>
> This was in response to the fsck.xfs man page that says it does
In a previous email to this list I stated:
> The authors of XFS seem to think that because it is a journalling
> filesystem, a filesystem repair tool is not necessary.
This was in response to the fsck.xfs man page that says it does nothing.
I was too hasty in saying this.
There is another tool
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13 -0800, nate wrote:
>> Cameron Hutchison said:
>> > The authors of XFS seem to think that because it is a journalling
>> > filesystem, a filesystem repair tool is not necessary.
>>
>> yes this is true, I forgot about it.
Vincent Lefevre said:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13 -0800, nate wrote:
> Then, why is fsck necessary with ext3?
tradititional fsck should not be with ext3's journalling turned on
(sometimes people forget to mount it with the right options so the right
journalling isn't enabled, I forget what
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:16:13 -0800, nate wrote:
> Cameron Hutchison said:
> > The authors of XFS seem to think that because it is a journalling
> > filesystem, a filesystem repair tool is not necessary.
>
> yes this is true, I forgot about it. a few years ago I was replacing
> a drive on a SGI
Cameron Hutchison said:
> This is also a drawback to XFS - I think. I'm guessing that my harddrive
> mapped a new block to cover for a bad block (since I was getting bad
> blocks), and while XFS did not cause a panic, processes would get stuck
> after entering a particular directory on the filesyst
Once upon a time nate said...
>
> drawbacks to reiserfs:
> - it does not handle bad blocks, so if your disks are of questionable
> quality you may have trouble if they start mapping bad blocks in the area
> where data is stored.
This is also a drawback to XFS - I think. I'm guessing that my hard
Oleg said:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their
> relative features in terms of
>
> a) quality (bug content)
> b) reliability (resistence to HD failures and system crashes)
> c) speed for workstation use
> d) compatibility (is it possible to convert from one
hi ya oleg
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Oleg wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their relative
> features in terms of
http://aurora.zemris.fer.hr/filesystems/
more various fs stuff
http://www.Linux-Sec.net/FileSystem/
> a) quality (bug content)
see their
Le lun 25/11/2002 à 16:51, Matthias Hentges a écrit :
> Am Mon, 2002-11-25 um 16.32 schrieb Oleg:
> > Hi
> >
> > Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their relative
> > features in terms of
> >
> > a) quality (bug content)
>
> Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ex
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 10:53:25 EST, Derrick 'dman' Hudson writes:
>| d) compatibility (is it possible to convert from one FS type to another)
>
>ext3 is just ext2 with a journal added (in a "hidden" .journal file).
>If you have an older kernel without ext3 support you can still mount
>the fs as ext2
Am Mon, 2002-11-25 um 16.32 schrieb Oleg:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their relative
> features in terms of
>
> a) quality (bug content)
Ext3 is rock-stable since it is based on ext2 which is in use for many
years and is well tested.
Many people have
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:32:32AM -0500, Oleg wrote:
| Hi
|
| Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their
| relative features in terms of
|
| a) quality (bug content)
I haven't experienced a bug with ext3 yet (or ext2 for that matter).
| b) reliability (resistence to HD
Hi
Can anyone who is very familiar with these FS types summarize their relative
features in terms of
a) quality (bug content)
b) reliability (resistence to HD failures and system crashes)
c) speed for workstation use
d) compatibility (is it possible to convert from one FS type to another)
Thank
29 matches
Mail list logo
