On 05/16/2014 06:36 PM, Swâmi Petaramesh wrote:
> Underlying is ecryptfs over BTRFS over LVM2 over LUKS (what else ?)
I recently switched one of my drives to BTRFS because I wanted
transparent compression. Since I also needed encryption, I chose:
BTRFS => LUKS (Device Mapper) => SCSI B
cess its filesystems,
however KDE's Dolphin file manager is usually dead as well.
Underlying is ecryptfs over BTRFS over LVM2 over LUKS (what else ?)
System logs :
kernel: [ cut here ]
kernel: kernel BUG at fs/namei.c:2404!
kernel: invalid opcode: [#1] PRE
lace for it ? It seems that
only contiguous partitions can be described. Am I mistaken ?
I looked also at kpartx, but it seems to me that kpartx has the same
limitations as block/partitions.
Should I rather make a patch for dmraid or lvm2 or some other tool I
am not aware of ? What would be the
* Alexander Nyberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Please upgrade to 2.6.12.6 (I don't remember exactly in which
> 2.6.12.x it went in), it contains a bugfix that should fix what
> you are seeing. 2.6.13 also has this.
Yep, that was 2.6.12.4, and here's the patch:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 11:58:54AM +0200 Ludovic Drolez wrote:
> Hi !
>
> We are developing (GPLed) disk cloning software similar to partimage: it's
> an intelligent 'dd' which backups only used sectors.
>
> Recently I added LVM1/2 support to it, and sometimes we saw LVM
> restorations failing
e result of the
restoration can be lead to a corrupted filesystem). If a restoration fails, just
try another one and it will work...
How the restoration program works:
- I restore the LVM2 administrative data (384 sectors, most of the time),
- I 'vgscan', 'vgchange',
- open for w
"Simon Matter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While looking at some data corruption vulnerability reports on
> Securityfocus I wonder why this issue does not get any attention from
> distributors. I have an open bugzilla report with RedHat, have an open
> customer service request with RedHat, ha
ent some money again, tried again and
>> again. That's all long ago now...
>>
>> In my tests I get corrupt files on LVM2 which is on top of software
>> raid1.
>> (This is a common setup even mentioned in the software RAID HOWTO and
>> has
>> worked for me on
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's one fix against 2.6.12.3 which is needed, but 2.6.9 didn't have the
> bug which this fix addresses.
aargh, I see that it did fix it.
Don't blame me. Blame people who screw up list threading by reading a
mail->news gateway and hitting "reply".
g RHEL4 for new servers. My data integrity
> tests gave me bad results - which I couldn't believe - and my first idea
> was - of course - bad hardware. I ordered new SCSI disks instead of the
> IDE disks, took another server, spent some money again, tried again and
> again. That's
> Once upon a time, "Simon Matter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>In my tests I get corrupt files on LVM2 which is on top of software
>> raid1.
>>(This is a common setup even mentioned in the software RAID HOWTO and has
>>worked for me on RedHat 9 /
Once upon a time, "Simon Matter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In my tests I get corrupt files on LVM2 which is on top of software raid1.
>(This is a common setup even mentioned in the software RAID HOWTO and has
>worked for me on RedHat 9 / kernel 2.4 for a long time n
of course - bad hardware. I ordered new SCSI disks instead of the
IDE disks, took another server, spent some money again, tried again and
again. That's all long ago now...
In my tests I get corrupt files on LVM2 which is on top of software raid1.
(This is a common setup even mentioned in th
From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
iscsi/lvm2/multipath needs guaranteed protection from the oom-killer, so
make the magical value of -17 in /proc//oom_adj defeat the oom-killer
altogether.
(akpm: we still need to document oom_adj and friends in
Documentation/filesystems/pr
of value "-17" (internally to the kernel it could be represented
> the same way, but the /proc parsing would be more complicated). If you
> prefer textual "disable" we can change this of course.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTE
ated). If you
prefer textual "disable" we can change this of course.
Comments welcome.
From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: oom killer protection
iscsi/lvm2/multipath needs guaranteed protection from the oom-killer.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Friday January 21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thank you all for having been so kind in your responses and help.
>
> However, there is one more set of questions I have.
>
> Does the md (software raid) have disk size or raid volume limits?
2^31 sectors for individual disks. Arrays do not have
On Jan 20, 2005, at 16:40, Norbert van Nobelen wrote:
RAID5 in software works pretty good (survived a failed disk, and
recovered
another failing raid in 1 month). Hardware is better since you don't
have a
boot partition left which is usually just present on one disk (you can
mirror
that yourself
Trever L. Adams wrote:
> Thank you all for having been so kind in your responses and help.
>
> However, there is one more set of questions I have.
>
> Does the md (software raid) have disk size or raid volume limits?
>
> If I am using such things as USB or 1394 disks, is there a way to use
> lab
Thank you all for having been so kind in your responses and help.
However, there is one more set of questions I have.
Does the md (software raid) have disk size or raid volume limits?
If I am using such things as USB or 1394 disks, is there a way to use
labels in /etc/raidtab and with the tools
ardware is better since you
> > don't have a boot partition left which is usually just present on one
> > disk (you can mirror that yourself ofcourse).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Norbert van Nobelen
> >
> > On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:51, you wro
Even as LVM user, guess what I used before answering (-:
On Thursday 20 January 2005 23:34, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:22:14PM -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> > PV = the device
> > VG = groups of them (the RAID5 array?)
> > LV = what? the file system?
>
> http://www.tldp.
Trever L. Adams wrote:
It is for a group. For the most part it is data access/retention. Writes
and such would be more similar to a desktop. I would use SATA if they
were (nearly) equally priced and there were awesome 1394 to SATA bridge
chips that worked well with Linux. So, right now, I am lookin
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:22:14PM -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> PV = the device
> VG = groups of them (the RAID5 array?)
> LV = what? the file system?
http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/LVM-HOWTO/anatomy.html
http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver8/whitepapers/LVM.pdf
[Out-of-date now,
1, you wrote:
I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of disk
space LVM2 (or any other RAID/MIRROR capable technology that is in
Linus's kernel) handle? I am talking with various people and we are
l
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:17:37PM -0700, Trever L. Adams wrote:
> Second, you mentioned file systems. We were talking about ext3. I have
> never used any others in Linux (barring ext2, minixfs, and fat). I had
> heard XFS from IBM was pretty good. I would rather not use reiserfs.
XFS is from SGI.
PV = the device
VG = groups of them (the RAID5 array?)
LV = what? the file system?
So, from what you are telling me, and the man page, 2.6.x with LVM2 can
have basically any size of PV, VG, and LV I want.
Am I flawed in my understanding?
Thank you,
Trever
On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 22:02 +
ursday 20 January 2005 20:51, you wrote:
> > I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
> > 2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of disk
> > space LVM2 (or any other RAID/MIRROR capable technology that is in
> > Linu
to LVs.
Size limit depends on metadata format and the kernel: old LVM1 format has
lower size limits - see the vgcreate man page.
New LVM2 metadata format relaxes those limits and lets you have LVs > 2TB
with a 2.6 kernel.
Alasdair
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
just present on one disk (you can mirror
that yourself ofcourse).
Regards,
Norbert van Nobelen
On Thursday 20 January 2005 20:51, you wrote:
> I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
> 2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of d
I recently saw Alan Cox say on this list that LVM won't handle more than
2 terabytes. Is this LVM2 or LVM? What is the maximum amount of disk
space LVM2 (or any other RAID/MIRROR capable technology that is in
Linus's kernel) handle? I am talking with various people and we are
looking a
31 matches
Mail list logo
