On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > He also has a login on the machine for testing but it's turned off at
> > the moment I'll turn it on again if he asks.
> I've already sent him a mail. BTW, is a simple login (I mean, for example
> ssh) enough for this task? I would think at
Hello,
> He also has a login on the machine for testing but it's turned off at
> the moment I'll turn it on again if he asks.
I've already sent him a mail. BTW, is a simple login (I mean, for example
ssh) enough for this task? I would think at least a serial console access
is needed...
--
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > I also gave him access to our machine, which has a 1.2 TB filesystem
> > > on it.
> > I have a 1.9TB FS about 4 km from him..
> That's great!
> Could you please contact him? (do you also have this problem, BTW?)
He also has a login on t
Hello,
> > I also gave him access to our machine, which has a 1.2 TB filesystem
> > on it.
> I have a 1.9TB FS about 4 km from him..
That's great!
Could you please contact him? (do you also have this problem, BTW?)
Thanks,
--[ Free Software ISOs - http://www.fsn.hu/?f=download ]-
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > I'll try to reproduce the thing on my machine as soon as possible.
> > > Perhaps it was just because it was Monday, who knows...
> > Meanwhile I found out that my problem is 100% reproducible.
> Since then, I contacted Kirk McKusick, who
Hello,
> > I'll try to reproduce the thing on my machine as soon as possible.
> > Perhaps it was just because it was Monday, who knows...
> Meanwhile I found out that my problem is 100% reproducible.
Since then, I contacted Kirk McKusick, who told me that he will
investigate this issue.
I also gav
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gerrit =?iso-8859-1?Q?
K=FChn?= writes:
>On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
>
>> > I've been trying to reproduce this bug on my desktop. This machine has 2
>> > 80gb disks, one of which is dedicated with one slice. So far, after 8 hard
>> >
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 06:31:42PM +0100, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
> > I've been trying to reproduce this bug on my desktop. This machine has 2
> > 80gb disks, one of which is dedicated with one slice. So far, after 8 hard
> > resets, I haven't had any problem with either the machine or bgfsck
> > hangi
> Dropping the number of inodes really helps fsck time; what does "df -i
> /bigfilesystem" print?
fs# df -i /users
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity iusedifree %iused Mounted on
/dev/da2s1e 999089944 457994296 46116845650% 6094282 25170996 19% /users
fsize = 8192, bs
In the last episode (Jan 30), Ryan Dooley said:
> > Just try to fsck 1.2 TB and you will be very-very patient :)
>
> Very patient indeed. I've got a 1.0TB partition about 51% full.
> It's still a 4-STABLE system and the last fsck from a crash last
> Friday (bad IBM, bad, no soup for you) took ju
> Just try to fsck 1.2 TB and you will be very-very patient :)
Very patient indeed. I've got a 1.0TB partition about 51% full. It's still a 4-STABLE
system and the last fsck from a crash last Friday (bad IBM, bad, no soup for you) took
just
about 55 minutes to fsck. *ugh*
I'm torture testing
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:34:25PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> > Following reports of problems with bgfsck during the 5.0-RC series, and
> > prior to the release, I spent some time adding hard disks to machines,
> > resetting without clean shutdowns,
Hello,
> I really don't know. I have a SV25 barebone system from Shuttle (VIA
> Twister Chipset) and an IBM deskstar 80GB IDE HD. Does that sound
> familiar to you?
Nope, mine is completely different.
It is a HP tc4100 (I think it has an Intel MOBO, but I'm not sure) with an
AHA-2940 controller an
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:34:25PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Following reports of problems with bgfsck during the 5.0-RC series, and
> prior to the release, I spent some time adding hard disks to machines,
> resetting without clean shutdowns, and then interrupting background fscks,
> piles of
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:23:08PM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> > 47105 seems to be slightly different from what I saw, because my machine
> > never paniced; the fsck just hung forever.
> It depends. My machine hangs, there's no panic.
Yes, I overlooked that in the PR when I read it first. Mine w
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:22:10PM -0500, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote:
> I've been trying to reproduce this bug on my desktop. This machine has 2
> 80gb disks, one of which is dedicated with one slice. So far, after 8 hard
> resets, I haven't had any problem with either the machine or bgfsck
> h
Hello,
> However, all those boxes used 40gb drives or smaller. I'll see if I
> can't dig up some larger drives in the next week or two and try doing
> that again.
I can't transfer it to you, but can give access to a box which has 1.2 TB
online. Just tell me what do you need. (ssh or console, for
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote:
> > I don't see it listed in 5.0-RELEASE ERRATA. Several people have now
> > reported problems with background fsck and in the case Kirk as
> > original author is loaded with other work I see no justification to
> > not mention the brokenness of
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Vallo Kallaste wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Attila Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I've just installed my first 5.0-rel system and did some
> > > "torture-testing". When resetting the machine to test the backgrounded
> > > fsck I experienced the
Hello,
> 47105 seems to be slightly different from what I saw, because my machine
> never paniced; the fsck just hung forever.
It depends. My machine hangs, there's no panic.
> > I've already written to Kirk McKusick, but it seems that he has a lot
> > of work, because I didn't get answer.
> Ok,
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Attila Nagy wrote:
> > I've just installed my first 5.0-rel system and did some
> > "torture-testing". When resetting the machine to test the backgrounded
> > fsck I experienced the following problem: All filesystems came back
> > quickly and bg fsck worke
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:44:03AM +0100, Attila Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've just installed my first 5.0-rel system and did some
> > "torture-testing". When resetting the machine to test the backgrounded
> > fsck I experienced the following problem: All filesystems came back
> > quick
Hello,
> I've just installed my first 5.0-rel system and did some
> "torture-testing". When resetting the machine to test the backgrounded
> fsck I experienced the following problem: All filesystems came back
> quickly and bg fsck worked fine, except for one. I had created a large
> (>50GB) /expor
Hi all,
I've just installed my first 5.0-rel system and did some
"torture-testing". When resetting the machine to test the backgrounded
fsck I experienced the following problem:
All filesystems came back quickly and bg fsck worked fine, except for
one. I had created a large (>50GB) /export filesys
24 matches
Mail list logo
