Hi,
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 17:08:48 -0500 (EST), Billy Harvey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm new to raid discussion. Why would you expect a 60 minute fsck
> everytime? Would the boot up not skip that if the shutdown was clean?
> Journaling seems like a complicated solution to save the time of an
Hi,
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 00:02:02 +0100, Benno Senoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Stephen: do you have an estimate time for wich journaling will be
> ready for use, even as an alpha-patch ?
Hopefully two to three months for demonstration code. It should be
usable this summer some time.
> do y
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 11:04:37 -0800 (PST), Dan Hollis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I assume the next filesystem (ext3?) will support journaling?
> Hope, hope?
Yes. ext3 came _this_ close "><" to finishing its first transaction
commit yesterday, but there's something in the buffer setup which
>
>
> You all miss the obvious point here, IMHO. The point of a journalled fs is
> not that you save some time for fsck. Actually, even with a journalled
> fs, I'd suggest doing an fsck from time to time just to be sure everything
> is
> fine.
>
Yes I fully agree that you should run fsck from tim
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Matti Aarnio wrote:
> Billy Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wonders:
> > Benno Senoner writes:
> ...
> > > but actually the customer , in the worst case (in case of an fsck) must
> > > turn on the power of the machine 30-60min (for a 90% full 70GB array)
> > > before actual usa
Matti Aarnio writes:
> Take another; a popular public FTP site with storage
> consisting of multiple 30-50 GB RAID5 filesystems.
> Total capacity around 300 GB. It crashes for some
> reason, when will it be online ? (That is a system
> where a slow day is 50 GB wort
Benno Senoner wrote:
> With today large disks 10+ GB avoiding the long fsck at boot time is a
> feature which
> is strongly needed. ( in this case NT has the advantage over Linux
> because it
> has some sort of journaling, therefore it boots relatively fast even on
> an unclean shutdown).
Somethi
Billy Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wonders:
> Benno Senoner writes:
...
> > but actually the customer , in the worst case (in case of an fsck) must
> > turn on the power of the machine 30-60min (for a 90% full 70GB array)
> > before actual usage.
> > In my case the machines can not remain powere
Benno Senoner writes:
> "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly. It keeps a record of in-progress filesystem operations so
> > that entire complex operations, such as renames, always complete
> > atomically even if you reboot half-way through. It eliminates the
> > need for an fsck at
"Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:00:20 +0100, Benno Senoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
>
> > can someone please explain what journaling precisely does, (is this
> > a sort of mechanism, which leaves the filesystem in a consistent
> > status, even in case of disk write
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:00:20 +0100, Benno Senoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > can someone please explain what journaling precisely does, (is this
> > a sort of mechanism, which leaves the filesystem in a consistent
> > status, even in case of di
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 09:00:20 +0100, Benno Senoner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> can someone please explain what journaling precisely does, (is this
> a sort of mechanism, which leaves the filesystem in a consistent
> status, even in case of disk write interruption, due of power loss
> or other
>
Hello,
>
>
> I had journaling and buffer commit code, but not any filesystem
> personality stuff. Current status is that 2.2 is out (yay!) and
> journaling is once again my top priority, and I've just started doing
> real testing of basic filesystem transactions (currently only for the
> simp
13 matches
Mail list logo
