Re: Orphaned rocksdb

On 08/17/2018 10:34 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:00:11PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: 16 sie 2018 15:26 Matej Mužila napisał(a):Hi, I've orphaned the rocksdb package. Nothing depends on it and it seems that it is not needed in Fedora. Isn't rocksdb u

Re: ZFS on linux

On 01/14/2016 07:29 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: C - Find maintainers ( I would volunteer - I'd have to learn packaging) > >I'd certainly be willing to assist if it were allowed. I will be honest and say I do not foresee this being allowed in an official capacity. People are better off using the exis

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On 10/06/2014 10:30 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 10/6/14 7:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote: Now, there is another question which has not been voiced: what is the "plan" for filessystems in Fedora (and by implication RHEL)? Is it BTRFS? Or, perhaps is i

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On 10/06/2014 10:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: Well that's exactly what it is, go away I'm busy with other stuff :). The fact is I'm the only one who can drive btrfs as the default fil

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: Well that's exactly what it is, go away I'm busy with other stuff :). The fact is I'm the only one who can drive btrfs as the default filesystem feature in Fedora, and since I've left Red Hat that has become much less of an priority for me. But my

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind up with server and desktop having defaults t

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 11:29 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 11:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote: I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without totally hiding other options. You and

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote: On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: So if you were asking me "Are we removing btrfs

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, "Stephen Gallagher" mailto:sgall...@redhat.com>> wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/01/2014 06:38 PM, Chris

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/27/2014 02:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik mailto:jo...@toxicpanda.com>> wrote: Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora y

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote: Can we get some definition of "legacy" here? kernel/nfs-utils versions? > I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also this comment in the XFS FAQ: "Beware th

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 10:19 PM, Jon wrote: The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why would anyone ever want to shrink a volume? If you use a dm-thin target with a shared storage pool (even if the file system i

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 03/01/2014 08:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: >There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server. Are they listed somewhere? XFS has many advantages: * best performance for most workloads (especially with high speed storage and larger number of core

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 07:56 AM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote: Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? My point is we should choose the best solution, even if it takes a little more work to get it up and running. I want to know what it will take to make sure btrfs is good to go as default

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

On 02/28/2014 06:20 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: by default we put ext4 on LVM The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently. It can be done, the convert tool should work, and Btrfs should work

Re: SystemD service stop behavior

On 10/23/2013 03:09 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Should "systemctl stop foo.service" stop all parent and child service processes? Example: GlusterFS starts a service daemon (glusterd) and a brick daemon (glusterfsd). When a user issues "systemctl stop glusterd" the service daemon is stopped

Re: Default boot/root filesystem

On 09/25/2013 01:29 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Ric Wheeler wrote: You should - and can - easily test your workload with your hardware/software stack to see if the options make a difference. Of course I can, but the issue is comparison. I can run tests all day long that may not stress the

Re: Default boot/root filesystem

On 09/25/2013 12:48 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Chris Murphy wrote: https://patrick-nagel.net/blog/archives/337 He provides no reliable testing method. I don't consider his results to be scientific or useful. One blogger will not be enough evidence. You should - and can - easily test y

Re: Default boot/root filesystem

On 09/25/2013 10:48 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: We should not confuse TRIM that gets handled at the device layer (and is a slow, non-queued S-ATA command for example) and a dm-thin parsing of that same command in software which just updates the

Re: Default boot/root filesystem

On 09/24/2013 10:25 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Sep 24, 2013, at 7:34 PM, William Brown wrote: Additionally, with the concerns re device shrink. Yes, XFS won't let you shrink, but with thin provision LVM that isn't so much an issue: You just shrink the pv and leave it alone. I would also argue t

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/31/2013 10:32 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote: On Mon, Jul 29 2013 at 2:48pm -0400, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/27/13 11:56 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Fri, 26.07.13 22:13, Miloslav Trmač (mitr at volny.cz) wrote: Hello all, with thin provisioning available, the total and free space values

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 05:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 29.07.13 16:52, Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) wrote: Oh, we don't assume it's all ours. We recheck regularly, immediately before appending to the journal files, of course assuming that we are not the only writers. W

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mon, 29.07.13 13:48, Eric Sandeen (sand...@redhat.com) wrote: Well, I am pretty sure the burden must be on the file systems to report a useful estimate free blocks value in statfs()/statvfs(). Exporting that problem to userspace and expecting

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 03:50 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Chris Murphy said: How does the audit system determine space available? If it's using btrfs configured for raid1 or raid10, df and stat will report the total storage of all devices in the volume, unlike md raid (or even proprietary

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 03:05 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: On Friday, July 26, 2013 09:29:41 PM Eric Sandeen wrote: On 7/26/13 3:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: A quick way to check whether your package is likely to be affected, is to look for statfs() or statvfs() calls in C, or the equivalent in your higher-lev

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 10:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:01:23AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: On Jul 29, 2013, at 6:30 AM, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: Yep, we need to be able to report free space on filesystems, so that apps provisioning virtual machines can get an idea of h

Re: Does your application depend on, or report, free disk space? Re: F20 Self Contained Change: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning

On 07/29/2013 10:01 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Jul 29, 2013, at 6:30 AM, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: Yep, we need to be able to report free space on filesystems, so that apps provisioning virtual machines can get an idea of how much storage they can provide to VMs without risk of over comittin

Re: Flock proposals now open for community voting

On 06/04/2013 10:22 AM, seth vidal wrote: On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400 Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote: On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned (such as Jon Masters) in the desc

Re: when startup delays become bugs

On 05/15/2013 05:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 05/15/2013 04:39 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I was planning to upgrade to F19 soon, and I kind-of care about the data on that system (I have backup, but corruption would not be welcome, just for the lost time reason). Do people recommend stickin

Re: when startup delays become bugs

On 05/16/2013 02:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Thu, 16.05.13 12:20, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: There have been no crashes, so ext4 doesn't need fsck on every boot: 4.051s systemd-fsck-root.service 515ms systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duu

Re: XFS and trim

On 04/02/2013 10:26 AM, Steven Haigh wrote: On 03/04/13 01:08, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 4/1/13 5:26 PM, Steven Haigh wrote: On 04/02/2013 12:19 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Steven Haigh wrote: Hi all, Firstly, Please CC me into replies as I'm not subscribed to this

Re: Status to make btsfs to the standard filesystem of Fedora

On 01/23/2013 03:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: Mistakenly left this paragraph incomplete, completion follows: I understand that btrfs is a Different Way Of Doing Things, but I don't think it flies to tell people 'yeah, the tools you've

Re: Status to make btsfs to the standard filesystem of Fedora

On 01/16/2013 11:41 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 01/16/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil > wrote: It affects also compilation, GDB was rebuilding for

Re: Fedora 18 Beta Go/No-Go Meeting, Thursday, November 22 @ 20:00 UTC (3pm Eastern, 12pm Pacific)

On 11/20/2012 03:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 21:06 +0100, drago01 wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 11:15 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:14:08AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Btw. Thanksgiving co

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

On 10/31/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: On 10/31/12 10:20 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 10/31/2012 02:57 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: A good place to see a summary of the broad community work is the annual Linux Storage and File System Workshop (LSF). You can google for the re

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

On 10/31/2012 10:33 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 10/31/2012 02:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: You know what the storage team does right? As far as I know there only exist individual developers working on storage be it filesystem or direct storage solution. You for btrfs and Eric for ext

Re: Anaconda is totally trashing the F18 schedule (was Re: f18: how to install into a LVM partitions (or RAID))

On 10/31/2012 07:54 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 10/31/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: It's already been pushed back once, the first iteration of newui was attempted to land in F-17 and was pushed back to F-18 if my memory serves me correctly. Dont think it did So I think we

Re: glusterfs rename

On 06/07/2012 01:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the approval process? Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package... It is certainly not required. Feature process is a

Re: glusterfs rename

On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think gluster 3.2 is the best strategy with a fed

Re: new hardware, more problems

On 01/24/2012 05:36 AM, Frederic Muller wrote: On 01/24/2012 06:16 PM, Greg wrote: On 24/01/2012 5:11 PM, Frederic Muller wrote: Hi! Some may remember I was struggling with my old (but faithful) T60 and rawhide because of poor performance and increased heat. I have therefore upgraded my hardwa

Re: Heads Up: FESCo is considering to block packages providing sysvinit services without systemd unit

On 11/09/2011 01:56 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote: On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to move forward the conver

Re: Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide

On 10/05/2011 04:01 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: > On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote: >>> On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all. >

Re: Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide

On 10/04/2011 07:19 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 10/3/11 5:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be interesting.

Re: Heads up: e2fsprogs-1.42-WIP-0702 pushed to rawhide

On 10/04/2011 03:12 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: > On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Large filesystem support for ext4 has languished upstream for a very >> long time, and few in the community seemed terribly interested to test it, >> either. > why? that's what i simple do not understand!

Re: Btrfs status for F16

On 08/08/2011 01:44 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Hello, > > In order to hopefully (and I understand this is a unrealistically big > hope) stem the amount of hostile comments and random remarks about > Btrfs not being ready for F16 that I get with _every_ bz that get's > filed against it, let me announc

Re: Intel HD 3000 video & blank screen during install of F15

On 08/03/2011 10:13 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On 8/3/11 8:58 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> I have a shiny new laptop (HP Pavilion dm4) with the Sandy Bridge video (HD >> 3000). Installing F15 or the nightly F16 build causes a blank screen during >> the >> install.

Intel HD 3000 video & blank screen during install of F15

I have a shiny new laptop (HP Pavilion dm4) with the Sandy Bridge video (HD 3000). Installing F15 or the nightly F16 build causes a blank screen during the install. Installing/running basic video works but is annoying. I have spent a few days poking around, looking for known issues. Is this uni

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

On 07/27/2011 06:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 06:43 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >>>> What specifically does systemd do that autofs does not do without it? >>> I don't know if there is anything, but it's neat to get something like

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

On 07/27/2011 01:23 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 07:07 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 07/26/2011 02:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 07:24 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>> >>>> should not be surprised that you s

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

On 07/26/2011 02:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 07:24 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> should not be surprised that you see resistance (what new capability does NFS >> get from the systemd changes for example!). > reliable on-demand automounting, for a

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

What I think that you and others are not given credit is that most upstream maintainers have very long lists of things to do. The NFS team is swamped doing support for pNFS (version 4.1) and has been going through massive change for example. When you have a very invasive feature that requires

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

On 07/22/2011 12:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/22/2011 04:37 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> MD, NFS, clustering have complicated and complex needs. The systemd team - >> not >> just the developers of those subsystems - need to be directly engaged and

Re: thanks for F15 mdadm systemd unit

On 07/22/2011 10:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 22.07.2011 16:33, schrieb drago01: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >>> >>> Am 21.07.2011 13:14, schrieb Bryn M. Reeves: On 07/20/2011 11:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > hopefully systemd will aslo live for 40 yea

Re: Starting user UIDs at 1000 - please check your packages

On 07/20/2011 02:06 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 13:52 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 07/20/2011 01:19 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:29 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>>> On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>>

Re: Starting user UIDs at 1000 - please check your packages

On 07/20/2011 01:19 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:29 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >>>> I normally build systems with (at least!) a separate /boo

Re: Starting user UIDs at 1000 - please check your packages

On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> I normally build systems with (at least!) a separate /boot, / and /home. >> This lets me do a full install, blow away old fedora system partitions and >> not lose any user d

Re: Starting user UIDs at 1000 - please check your packages

On 07/20/2011 12:18 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Benjamin Lewis wrote: >> On 07/20/2011 04:07 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> Fedora 16 will start user UIDs and GIDs at 1000 instead of 500[1]. >>> >>> Unfortunately some packages need to know the boundar

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailLists wrote: >> >> >> I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I >> dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right? >> >> Ric - what is the current status of RAID-5 ?

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Well it should be more like >> >> /boot/dev/sda1 >> swap/dev/sda2 >> btrfs > Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap > and root filesystems some

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On 07/14/2011 11:08 AM, JB wrote: > Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes: > >> ... >> I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms >> implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :) >> ... > Well, not convinc

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On 07/14/2011 09:50 AM, JB wrote: > Ric Wheeler redhat.com> writes: > >> ... > >> Given that my family is from the hills of eastern >> Kentucky, I also find the "hill billie" comment off putting. >> ... > Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky

Re: BTRFS: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

On 07/14/2011 08:28 AM, JB wrote: > Josef Bacik toxicpanda.com> writes: > >> ... >> We aren't aiming for "hopefully stable", we're aiming for actually stable >> and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no >> switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal. >> >

Re: systemd: Is it wrong?

On 07/11/2011 02:22 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 07/10/2011 07:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> On Sun, 10.07.11 13:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote: >> >>> Hey, >>> >>> On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: Improvement means change, and change will inevitably upset s

Re: Ext4 + barriers=1 + ssd + power loss while commiting to a git repo = broken repo?

On 04/14/2011 05:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Michał Piotrowski writes: > >> W dniu 14 kwietnia 2011 11:04 użytkownik Andreas Schwab >> napisał: >>> Michał Piotrowski writes: >>> But the question remains - should enabled barriers protect against such data loss/breakage? Or I just ha

Re: F15 ext4 discard option - why not default?

On 03/16/2011 01:53 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I installed F15 on SSD and I noticed that file systems are not mounted > with discard option. > Shouldn't "discard" option be enabled by default for SSD devices? > No - discard is off on purpose. Some SSD's work very well, others have per

Re: BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage

On 03/02/2011 10:30 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > On 02/03/11 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: >>> 2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use >>> BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the defa

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 02/25/2011 08:52 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerwrote: >>>> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: >>>

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: >>> Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a): >>>> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latte

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: > Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a): >> btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter. > BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have > been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). This is absolut

Re: really strange ext4 behavior

On 02/15/2011 09:05 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote: (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never accepted upstream) >>> Why isn't it the Fedora default? >> Excellent question - we probably should flip i

Re: really strange ext4 behavior

On 02/15/2011 05:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 02/15/2011 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details; >> without that, "defaults" is best practice. :) >> >> (except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback >> cache, defa

Re: really strange ext4 behavior

On 02/13/2011 01:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: snip >> >> Good to hear that it worked! >> >> Note that the barrier code makes your data safer, so you should run with it >> on >> by default (unless you really don't care about the file system). > > > If ext3 was running fine without barriers

Re: really strange ext4 behavior

On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler > napisał: >> On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mar

Re: really strange ext4 behavior

On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test > speed, to my surprise I heard a really strange noises. > > It's very strange because the drive is new >9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age

Re: SSD support in Anaconda/F14

On 12/27/2010 09:55 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> Could the system run benchmarks to determine whether its own drives >> fall into this category? > http://sourceforge.net/projects/test-discard/ > > Made by Red Hat. > > The important thing to note: the FUD about discard

Re: SSD support in Anaconda/F14

On 12/26/2010 02:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 12/26/2010 01:53 PM, nodata wrote: >> On 26/12/10 18:42, drago01 wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Ray Strodewrote: Hi, On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, drago01wrote: > You don't want to use LVM (and you should mo

Re: NFS in rawhide

On 11/17/2010 02:02 PM, Jon Masters wrote: > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:12 -0500, Peter Jones wrote: >>> Quick question. I always had NFS starting on startup on a particular >>> rawhide box. Today it didn't, and I notice that /etc/rc2|3.d/S390nfs was >>> missing aswell. Did something remove these lin

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/12/2010 11:46 AM, Chris Lumens wrote: >> * btrfs (Is this ready to be default? :) If so, would that warrant a >>change in our lvm by default setup? > I don't think we are quite ready for this yet. I do have "btrfs > strategy" on my todo list, though. I'm hoping we can start talking at >

Re: Mounting an encrypted volume presents the volume to all users on a machine

On 10/26/2010 09:44 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28:55AM +0200, nodata wrote: > >> What I am concerned about is that the volume is mounted for _every_ user >> on the system to see. > Only if the permissions are set that way. chmod 0750 /whatever and it > won't be. > I

Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?

On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot >>> distribute >>> unlike say the Intel firmwares.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] bfq disk I/O scheduler

On 08/04/2010 01:58 PM, Paolo Valente wrote: > Hi, > I have been working for a few years (with Fabio Checconi) on a disk > scheduler providing definitely lower latencies than cfq, as well as a > higher throughput with most of the test workloads we used (or the same > throughput as cfq with the othe

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly& >> report >> the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storag

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: > >> We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly& >> report >> the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storag

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/19/2010 09:39 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: >> On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> Alexander Boström wrote: >>>>>

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Alexander Boström wrote: >>> ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen: >>> There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general yes, we are ready.

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/13/2010 08:17 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote: > On 03/13/2010 12:45 AM, Felix Miata wrote: > >> On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed: >> >> >> >>> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power >&g

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/13/2010 12:45 AM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/03/10 21:28 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed: > > >> For anyone serious about storage (performance, reliability and power >> consumption) this will be a positive step. >> > Not everyone. Users of larger nu

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/10/2010 08:33 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/03/10 20:19 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed: > > >> Peter Jones wrote: >> > >>> Note also that the access time will be slightly faster. >>> > As if an average normal person coul

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/10/2010 05:38 PM, Peter Jones wrote: > On 03/10/2010 05:28 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > >> On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed: >> >> >>> Felix Miata wrote: >>> >> >>>> The change is for the

Re: Hard drive spec change

On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed: > > >> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and >> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready >> for this or getting ready, or already usin

Re: Not prepared for 4096 byte sector hard drives?

On 02/15/2010 12:13 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> I don't know for sure if hdparm shows it; I don't think so. If you mean: >> >> -g Display the drive geometry (cylinders, heads, sectors), the >> size (in sectors) of the device, and the starti

Re: Not prepared for 4096 byte sector hard drives?

On 02/14/2010 11:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote: > Any truth here? > > http://www.osnews.com/story/22872/Linux_Not_Fully_Prepared_for_4096- > Byte_Sector_Hard_Drives > We have actually been working hard to take advantage of the information that these drives export so hopefully this will all work in f1