Vladimir V. Saveliev wrote:
> Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
>
> > ... In case of tails you may even loose some of the information
> > that was on disk previously.
>
> No. It should not. If it does - this is a bug.
Are you absolutely sure on this?
How is a block of data protected when it changes fro
Marc Lehmann wrote:
> However, as a matter of fact it almost never happens on ext2, while it
> happens almost always with reiserfs. It's strictly a QOI difference
> (reiserfs might trade speed for correctness).
Are you sure.. I imagine both are using the same flushing daemon which
by default onl
Hi!
> BUT: You should mention this somewhere that you compile your own
> quota package AND maybe rename it to something like
> quota-1.70-reiser
> or so.
If you get your quota patches from my site (dice.mfa.kfki.hu) or from
namesys, you can find the apropriate quota packages also there.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm trying to evaluate many filesystems' speed for Squid's cache, in order
> to optimize the performance of a proxy server. Until now, ReiserFS seems
> to be the best for this task (because it's very good when
> creating/deleting many small files).
> I saw this is
Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> I'm using kernel-2.4.5 on a Red Hat 7.1 system (installed with the
> anaconda updates from http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/ )
> It's a SGI 1200 machine, Intel L440GX+ motherboard, aic7xxx SCSI
> controller, dual PIII/750.
> I'm also using reiserfsprogs-3.x.0k_pre5-0.
PB> Hi!
PB> extend an existing (0.8i) LV)
>>
PB> so i created a new kernel (2.4.2) with lvm 0.9.1_beta7
>>
>> Linux-2.4.4 has serious reiserfs bugs fixed.
PB> hmm, i tried to make a LVM patch for it but this fails - yesterday i saw a
PB> message, that there's somewhere a patch for the
Here are two testcases (created using debugreiserfs -p) where reiserfsck
fails. For the first one (which is badly damaged),
http://www-isl.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de/reiserfs/md2.bmap.gz 11737
http://www-isl.mach.uni-karlsruhe.de/reiserfs/md2.gz 14891848
"reiserfsck --rebuild-tree
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 08:39:33AM +0200, Henrik Nordstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you sure.. I imagine both are using the same flushing daemon which
> by default only flushes data blocks after 30 seconds, allowing a rather
> largeish window between the application have written the data a
