On Friday, May 25, 2001 09:21:42 AM -0700 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No, our policy is strictly in sync with and reflective of that of the
> rest of the linux-kernel. Since the ac series has a different policy, we
> can be different in regards to the ac series.
Not really, our
On Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:16:58 PM +0100 Alan Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
>> in linux-2.4.5-pre*, so I think that a patch that adds a useful feature
>> like badblock support would be OK.
>
> FreeVxFS changes
> "erik" == Erik Mouw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
erik> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> No, reiserfs does have badblock support
>>
>> You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
>> written after code freeze.
erik> IMHO we are not
erik == Erik Mouw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
erik On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
written after code freeze.
erik IMHO we are not that deep into code
On Friday, May 25, 2001 09:21:42 AM -0700 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No, our policy is strictly in sync with and reflective of that of the
rest of the linux-kernel. Since the ac series has a different policy, we
can be different in regards to the ac series.
Not really, our
On Thursday, May 24, 2001 11:16:58 PM +0100 Alan Cox
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
in linux-2.4.5-pre*, so I think that a patch that adds a useful feature
like badblock support would be OK.
FreeVxFS changes precisely
> IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
> in linux-2.4.5-pre*, so I think that a patch that adds a useful feature
> like badblock support would be OK.
FreeVxFS changes precisely nothing in the behaviour of any other fs - its like
adding a new driver.
Updating
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> No, reiserfs does have badblock support
>
> You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
> code freeze.
>
> Hans
>
It might be nice to have a link to that patch from the "download" page.
I didn't see that
Erik Mouw wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > No, reiserfs does have badblock support
> >
> > You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
> > written after code freeze.
>
> IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore.
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Excellent!
>
> Will this be in resierfs 4.0 then?
>
> cu
>
> jjs
>
> Hans Reiser schrieb:
>
> > No, reiserfs does have badblock support
> >
> > You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
> > code freeze.
No, version 4 won't ship
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> No, reiserfs does have badblock support
>
> You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
> written after code freeze.
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
in
>At 12:19 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>In fact you will typically only see an I/O error if the drive _can't_
>>remap the sector anymore, because it has run out. No point in reporting
>>a condition that was recovered.
>>
>>I'd still say, that if you get bad block errors reported from
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
> No, reiserfs does have badblock support
>
> You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
> code freeze.
Any chance that you'll be putting them on www.namesys.com for easy download?
-Dave
-
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
> > does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
> > a bad block you are stuck.
>
> reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually
At 5:56 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> > At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> >reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
>> >So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
> >So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and the next time you hit
> >the block the firmware has
At 12:19 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>In fact you will typically only see an I/O error if the drive _can't_
>remap the sector anymore, because it has run out. No point in reporting
>a condition that was recovered.
>
>I'd still say, that if you get bad block errors reported from your
At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
>reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
>So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and the next time you hit
>the block the firmware has mapped in a fresh one from its internal
>reserves.
Drives have remapping
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, May 24 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
> > > does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
> > >
On Thu, May 24 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
> > does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
> > a bad block you are stuck.
>
> reiserfs doesn't,
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
> does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
> a bad block you are stuck.
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its
It was written:
> To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
> is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
> returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
> to use the current one for a while before returning it for
> another disk that will prolly
It was written:
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning it for
another disk that will prolly just
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
a bad block you are stuck.
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
On Thu, May 24 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
a bad block you are stuck.
reiserfs doesn't, but the
Jens Axboe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 24 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
a bad block
At 12:19 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Jens Axboe wrote:
In fact you will typically only see an I/O error if the drive _can't_
remap the sector anymore, because it has run out. No point in reporting
a condition that was recovered.
I'd still say, that if you get bad block errors reported from your disk
At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and the next time you hit
the block the firmware has mapped in a fresh one from its internal
reserves.
Drives have remapping
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and the next time you hit
the block the firmware has mapped in
At 5:56 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 08:50:04AM -0700, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
At 10:31 AM +0200 2001-05-24, Andi Kleen wrote:
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has transparently in its firmware.
So it hits a bad block; you see an IO error and the next
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 12:58:14AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
Well reiserfs is probably a very bad choice at this point. It
does not have any bad blocks support (yet), so as soon as you have
a bad block you are stuck.
reiserfs doesn't, but the HD usually has
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
code freeze.
Any chance that you'll be putting them on www.namesys.com for easy download?
-Dave
-
To
At 12:19 PM +0200 2001-05-24, Jens Axboe wrote:
In fact you will typically only see an I/O error if the drive _can't_
remap the sector anymore, because it has run out. No point in reporting
a condition that was recovered.
I'd still say, that if you get bad block errors reported from your disk
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
written after code freeze.
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
in linux-2.4.5-pre*,
J Sloan wrote:
Excellent!
Will this be in resierfs 4.0 then?
cu
jjs
Hans Reiser schrieb:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
code freeze.
No, version 4 won't ship until september
Erik Mouw wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 09:53:45AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was
written after code freeze.
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, reiserfs does have badblock support
You just have to get it as a separate patch from us because it was written after
code freeze.
Hans
It might be nice to have a link to that patch from the download page.
I didn't see that patch the
IMHO we are not that deep into code freeze anymore. Freevxfs got added
in linux-2.4.5-pre*, so I think that a patch that adds a useful feature
like badblock support would be OK.
FreeVxFS changes precisely nothing in the behaviour of any other fs - its like
adding a new driver.
Updating
monkeyiq wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Could I please be CC'd replies.
>
> To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
> is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
> returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
> to use the current one for a while before
Hi,
Could I please be CC'd replies.
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning it for
another disk that
Hi,
Could I please be CC'd replies.
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning it for
another disk that
monkeyiq wrote:
Hi,
Could I please be CC'd replies.
To keep it short and sweet, I have a 45Gb IBM drive that
is slowly dying by getting more bad sectors. I have already
returned my first one to get the current disk, so would like
to use the current one for a while before returning
42 matches
Mail list logo
