On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> kiko wrote:
>
> > Don't count on raid0145/0.9 going in anytime soon; the said powers don't
> > reckon it's stable enough, to my amazement. Must be something I can't
> > figure.
>
> I think the main re
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Stephen Waters wrote:
> Tom Livingston wrote:
> >
> > Jason A Diegmueller wrote:
> > > NOTE: I can't go newer then 2.2.11 at this time due to the fact
> > >the latest released raid0145 patch is for 2.2.11. RAID
> > >people, I haven't tried it yet: Will it patch 2
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Jason A. Diegmueller wrote:
> NOTE: I can't go newer then 2.2.11 at this time due to the fact
>the latest released raid0145 patch is for 2.2.11. RAID
>people, I haven't tried it yet: Will it patch 2.2.12 without
>too much hassle?
Yes; the only changes made i
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, paul wrote:
> I am having trouble re-establishing my mirror.
> I have not replaced the drive, but it is behaving properly.
Why did it get dropped from the array in the first place?
> I am using persistent superblock and it seems to look there and see
> that there was a probl
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, The Doctor What wrote:
> > I can´t apply the 2.2.10 raid patches and apply the diff to 2.2.11. Got
> > many failed patches and error in init/main.c. I need to wait a
> > specific-version of the patch, is some fix planned to this release, or i
> > need to continue w/ 2.2.10?
>
