Hi,
if anybody wondered what happend:
One logic volume on the iscsi storage was configured to two different
LUNs, the second LV was not connected at all.
So the server was logged in to the same LV and at some point the Journal
got messed etc ...
Regards . Götz
--
Götz Reinicke
Hi,
I'm faced with a very strange behaviour:
Centos 6.5 server, Hardware ISCSI HBA from Emulex OneConnect, most
recent drivers and firmware from emulex installed.
Directly attached a 10G ISCSI Storage from QSan. Two Raid volumes, Raid
5, 8 Disks each at 2 TB so 14 TB each logic raid volume.
I've had a chance to test this a bit more. Updating the firmware on the
controller had no effect, so I tried changing the scheduler, but that
doesn't seem to work either. I have confirmed, however, that this
happens exactly once per boot. I can test it by doing something like:
dd if=/dev/zero
On 03/30/2013 06:33 AM, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
On one of the partitions on the RAID. It'll run for a little while, then
pause when the file is always exactly 9913094144 bytes (this is close
enough to 10% of the system RAM that I think it's hitting some sort of
cache flush threshold), spit out
4GB.
--
Joakim Ziegler - Supervisor de postproducción - Terminal
joa...@terminalmx.com - 044 55 2971 8514 - 5264 0864
On 30/03/13 16:43, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/30/2013 06:33 AM, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
On one of the partitions on the RAID. It'll run for a little while, then
I'm having an occasional problem with a box. It's a Supermicro 16-core
Xeon, running CentOS 6.3 with kernel 2.6.32-279.el6.x86_64, 96 gigs of
RAM, and an Areca 1882ix-24 RAID controller with 24 disks, 23 in RAID6
plus a hot spare. The RAID is divided into 3 partitions, two of 25 TB
plus one
On 03/26/2013 02:01 PM, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
Anyone seen anything like this before? It's not very frequent, but it's
very annoying.
I haven't, but the first thing I'd do in the situation you describe is
update the firmware on the RAID card.
I looked around at other discussions of the same
Ok, will try the firmware first. I saw some talk of the scheduler, but I
was uncertain if that applied in my case. By the way, doesn't the
command you include switch to the noop scheduler? Shouldn't it be echo
deadline?
--
Joakim Ziegler - Supervisor de postproducción - Terminal
On 03/26/2013 05:55 PM, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
Shouldn't it be echo deadline?
Yes! Copied and pasted the wrong line from docs. X(
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks, just checking. :)
--
Joakim Ziegler - Supervisor de postproducción - Terminal
joa...@terminalmx.com - 044 55 2971 8514 - 5264 0864
On 26/03/13 19:13, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 03/26/2013 05:55 PM, Joakim Ziegler wrote:
Shouldn't it be echo deadline?
Yes! Copied and
Hi,
I'm using centos 5.8 running as a production system, my system suddenly
crash because the /var/log/kern.log have a huge file size, and make the
disk full.
this is the message from kern.log
2012-07-26T05:36:39.120185+02:00 NL50-ND019 kernel: EXT4-fs: Can't
allocate: Allocation context
On 7/26/2011 3:11 AM, Andrzej Szymanski wrote:
On 2011-07-25 19:10, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a file-oriented copy to
new partitions? A
On 2011-07-25 19:10, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a file-oriented copy to
new partitions? A resize + a dd copy to shift the position might be
From: John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com
thats by cylinder, which is an old MSDOS legacy thing. I believe
parted and probably some other programs let you partition by sector instead.
In my kickstart pre script, I use:
... | sfdisk -H $HEADS -S $SECTORS -uS --force -L $DEVICE
For SSDs, I saw
On Tuesday, July 26, 2011 05:21:58 AM John Doe wrote:
From: John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com
thats by cylinder, which is an old MSDOS legacy thing. I believe
parted and probably some other programs let you partition by sector instead.
In my kickstart pre script, I use:
... | sfdisk -H
On 7/26/2011 3:11 AM, Andrzej Szymanski wrote:
On 2011-07-25 19:10, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a file-oriented copy to
new partitions? A
On 07/26/2011 03:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Thank you! That seems to have worked, but now I'm curious as to why the
partition on the old drives didn't go to the end of the disk - which I
had expected would have left no extra room. Was the dos style rounding
computing the end of a cylinder
I've mentioned this problem before but put off doing anything about it
and maybe now someone can suggest the best solution.
I have a 3-member RAID1 set where one of the members is periodically
swapped and rotated offsite. The filesystem contains a backuppc archive
which has millions of
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a file-oriented copy to
new partitions? A resize + a dd copy to shift the position might
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 13:23 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a file-oriented copy to
new
John Austin wrote:
On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 13:23 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
My questions for any filesystem experts are:
Is there a way to adjust the existing md partitions to get the right
alignment for 4k sectors without having to do a
--On Monday, July 25, 2011 01:56:38 PM -0400 m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I think it was when I was building a 6.0 box a couple weeks ago, but I'd
partition, it would do an mkfs... and *then* tell me it wasn't aligned,
and I played with it several times, and it absolutely would NOT align it,
nor
Devin Reade wrote:
--On Monday, July 25, 2011 01:56:38 PM -0400 m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
I think it was when I was building a 6.0 box a couple weeks ago, but I'd
partition, it would do an mkfs... and *then* tell me it wasn't aligned,
and I played with it several times, and it absolutely would
--On Monday, July 25, 2011 02:19:16 PM -0400 m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
No joy - I think I have to use parted - the drive was too big for fdisk.
I should have mentioned that this was with 1.5TB disks. I think there's
a limit somewhere beyond 2TB for fdisk.
Devin
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
I've mentioned this problem before but put off doing anything about it
and maybe now someone can suggest the best solution.
I have a 3-member RAID1 set where one of the members is periodically
swapped and rotated
On 7/25/2011 1:42 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
I've wondered many times, though haven't tried it, if the issues with
hard links and backuppc could be solved by using a container file with
a loopback mount, and then that file could be moved around as needed
without running into hard-link issues.
On 7/25/2011 1:42 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
I've wondered many times, though haven't tried it, if the issues with
hard links and backuppc could be solved by using a container file with
a loopback mount, and then that file could be moved around as needed
without running into hard-link issues.
On 7/25/2011 4:05 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
On 7/25/2011 1:42 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
I've wondered many times, though haven't tried it, if the issues with
hard links and backuppc could be solved by using a container file with
a loopback mount, and then that file could be moved around as needed
On 07/25/11 2:17 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
The disk I want to add is the same size as the existing disks if
expressed in 512 byte sectors - and they have one partition taking all
of the disk space. If I add a leading offset to get the 4k alignment,
there won't be enough room for the existing
On 7/25/2011 4:26 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 07/25/11 2:17 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
The disk I want to add is the same size as the existing disks if
expressed in 512 byte sectors - and they have one partition taking all
of the disk space. If I add a leading offset to get the 4k alignment,
On 07/25/11 2:44 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
where is your existing partition starting?
if its on a track or cylinder boundary... then sure, you can move it
forward by using something that will let you
On 7/25/2011 5:33 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
On 07/25/11 2:44 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 91201 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
where is your existing partition starting?
if its on a track or cylinder boundary... then sure, you can move it
On 07/25/11 3:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sdh1 1 91201 732572001 fd Linux raid autodetect
It doesn't need to boot. And the 3rd member doesn't need to
autodetect, although I do want to be able to mount it
On 07/25/2011 10:10 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I've mentioned this problem before but put off doing anything about it
and maybe now someone can suggest the best solution.
I have a 3-member RAID1 set where one of the members is periodically
swapped and rotated offsite. The filesystem contains
And be careful to leave boot partition on ext3.
Why is that? Also, does the 5.6 install dvd offer ext4 in the
graphical install? Last time I do not think I saw it.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Am 23.07.2011 00:16, schrieb Matt:
And be careful to leave boot partition on ext3.
Why is that? Also, does the 5.6 install dvd offer ext4 in the
graphical install? Last time I do not think I saw it.
grub shipping with 5.6 can not boot from ext4 formatted partitions.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:17 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 07/05/11 9:04 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
The PostgreSQL wiki seems to say that database tables are
allocated in 1GB extents. In workloads with which I am
familiar, with an RDBMS the extents don't bounce
around all
Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I just tried to install EXT4 onto a CentOS 5 machine but it failed.
Does anyone know in which repository it is?
root@usaxen01:[~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 5 (Final)
root@usaxen01:[~]$ uname -a
Linux usaxen01 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5xen #1 SMP
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Charles Polisher cpol...@surewest.netwrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
EXT2?
The optimum on an EXT basis for a filesystem
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 07:28 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster
On 7/5/11 6:28 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
EXT2?
The
Christopher Chan wrote:
James Hogarth wrote:
If you're running a database on it, you might re-think using a
journaled filesystem. For that, ext2 will be faster and much
less prone to unrecoverable data loss.
Did you mean EXT4, or in actual fact EXT2? I thought EXT4 was faster than
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Charles Polisher cpol...@surewest.netwrote:
(I'm sharpening my axe for the Use ZFS, it's bulletproof discussion.)
--
Charles Polisher
___
HAHA, what's your take on ZFS then?
We've been running ZFS on a few
On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 10:26 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
(I'm sharpening my axe for the Use ZFS, it's bulletproof discussion.)
/me puts on asbestos suit...stares...switches to asbestos armor instead.
HAHA, what's your take on ZFS then?
We've been running ZFS on a few storage servers,
On 07/05/11 7:10 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
In general and with some simplifiying assumptions, a database
consists of statically pre-allocated files. The process of extending
the files happens at birth. The relative speed over the lifetime
of the database is dominated by raw I/O, not by
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
We've been running ZFS on a few storage servers, both in the office and
for our hosting clients for about 2 years now and all I can say it that
it's rock solid.
+1
Although I have seen screams from
On 7/5/2011 1:06 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
/me wonders what an md raid array with an ext3 fs that has its journal
on an ssd in full data journal mode give in terms of performance.
I honestly haven't tried this yet, probably cause when I looked at how
this works, it's only the journal which runs
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap these days.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
Yes, but
On 7/5/2011 1:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap these days.
Yes, but I suppose it all depends on the needs of the server in
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/2011 1:30 PM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Les Mikeselllesmikes...@gmail.com
wrote:
How much can that matter? Reads are going to be cached in main RAM
anyway - which is pretty cheap
On 07/05/11 7:10 AM, Charles Polisher wrote:
In general and with some simplifiying assumptions, a database
consists of statically pre-allocated files. The process of extending
the files happens at birth. The relative speed over the lifetime
of the database is dominated by raw I/O, not by
On 07/05/11 9:04 PM, Charles Polisher wrote:
The PostgreSQL wiki seems to say that database tables are
allocated in 1GB extents. In workloads with which I am
familiar, with an RDBMS the extents don't bounce
around all that much, i.e. the vast majority of writes do
not result in a change to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 01:04:34PM -0700, PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov
Le 24/06/2011 03:44, Marian Marinov a écrit :
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not too concerned about
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Alain Péan
alain.p...@lpp.polytechnique.fr wrote:
Le 24/06/2011 03:44, Marian Marinov a écrit :
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had
On Jun 23, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project
requires ext3/ext4.
I'm always
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for
PJ writes:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this project
requires
Just another happy camper here. We have ext4 for some high-volume servers
and have experienced no operational problems.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:31:28 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:41:50 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:31 PM, PJ pauljer...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16:37 PJ wrote:
On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:16 PM, PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for
On 6/23/2011 12:16 PM, PJ wrote:
I'm sure many are running ext4 FS's in production, but just want to be
re-assured that there are not currently any major issues before
starting a new project that looks like it will be using ext4.
I've previously been using xfs but the software for this
...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of Marian Marinov
Sent: Friday, 24 June 2011 7:48 a.m.
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext4 in CentOS 5.6?
On Thursday 23 June 2011 22:31:28 PJ wrote:
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Marian Marinov m...@yuhu.biz wrote:
On Thursday 23 June 2011 19:16
On Friday 24 June 2011 04:34:20 Smithies, Russell wrote:
We have a single 27TB partition (35 x 1TB drives as RAID5+0 in an HP
MDS600), just formatted it xfs and had no problems with it so far. It's
used as scratch space so not too concerned about performance.
--Russell
I have compared the
On 6/23/11 8:44 PM, Marian Marinov wrote:
I have compared the performance of both XFS and Ext4. And since I use those
big machines for backups, for me the write performance was very important.
XFS was almost twice slower.
Twice slower? At what kind of operations? I don't think any filesystem
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Phil Schaffner
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:55 AM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext4 support in anaconda?
S.Tindall wrote on 04/10/2011 01:46 PM:
Just boot the installer
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Phil Schaffner
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 3:55 AM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: Re: [CentOS] ext4 support in anaconda?
S.Tindall wrote on 04/10/2011 01:46 PM:
Just boot the installer
Just tried running a configuration on 5.6 with ext4 as the /
partitition. I got the error
that cannot boot ext4 partition. bummer I know this is just a boot
issue and make the ext3 but I was disappointed.
Maybe 6.0 will have ext4 bootable.
jerry
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Jerry Geis ge...@pagestation.com wrote:
Just tried running a configuration on 5.6 with ext4 as the /
partitition. I got the error
that cannot boot ext4 partition. bummer I know this is just a boot
issue and make the ext3 but I was disappointed.
Maybe 6.0
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Just tried running a configuration on 5.6 with ext4 as the /
partitition. I got the error that cannot boot ext4 partition.
bummer I know this is just a boot issue and make the ext3 but I
was disappointed.
Maybe 6.0 will have ext4 bootable.
I installed
On 04/11/2011 11:04 AM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
Just tried running a configuration on 5.6 with ext4 as the /
partitition. I got the error that cannot boot ext4 partition.
bummer I know this is just a boot issue and make the ext3 but I
was disappointed.
Hi,
it looks like, I cannot format a partition as ext4 while install.
I thought upstream has ext4 fully supported in 5.6?
I looked in release notes but only found reference to ext4 in RHEL5.6
My install is netinstall.iso 64bit release 5.6 as Virtualbox VM.
Thx
Rainer
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rainer Traut tr...@gmx.de wrote:
it looks like, I cannot format a partition as ext4 while install.
I thought upstream has ext4 fully supported in 5.6?
I looked in release notes but only found reference to ext4 in RHEL5.6
From
Am 10.04.2011 15:30, schrieb Tom H:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rainer Trauttr...@gmx.de wrote:
it looks like, I cannot format a partition as ext4 while install.
I thought upstream has ext4 fully supported in 5.6?
I looked in release notes but only found reference to ext4 in RHEL5.6
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Rainer Traut tr...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 10.04.2011 15:30, schrieb Tom H:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rainer Trauttr...@gmx.de wrote:
it looks like, I cannot format a partition as ext4 while install.
I thought upstream has ext4 fully supported in 5.6?
I
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 16:40 +0200, Rainer Traut wrote:
Am 10.04.2011 15:30, schrieb Tom H:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Rainer Trauttr...@gmx.de wrote:
it looks like, I cannot format a partition as ext4 while install.
I thought upstream has ext4 fully supported in 5.6?
I looked in
S.Tindall wrote on 04/10/2011 01:46 PM:
Just boot the installer with the ext4 option and anaconda will be able
to format ext4, or at least that works in 5.5.
Works just as well on 5.6.
Phil
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Phil Schaffner philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov
wrote:
S.Tindall wrote on 04/10/2011 01:46 PM:
Just boot the installer with the ext4 option and anaconda will be able
to format ext4, or at least that works in 5.5.
Works just as well on 5.6.
Sorry, this is the
On Monday, April 11, 2011 10:53 AM, Brandon Ooi wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Phil Schaffner
philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov mailto:philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
S.Tindall wrote on 04/10/2011 01:46 PM:
Just boot the installer with the ext4 option and anaconda will
be
On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote:
Dear All,
Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD
Version is 8.3.10
I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this
peculiar problem
Please replay me ASAP.
the problem is, thats a RED HAT
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote:
On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote:
Dear All,
Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and
DRBD Version is 8.3.10
I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote:
Dear All,
Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is
2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10
We're pretty much unable to help because yours is a RHEL6 system, we're
stuck at RHEL5.5 until our team gets RHEL6 ==
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Balaji balajisun...@midascomm.com wrote:
Dear All,
Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD
Version is 8.3.10
DRBD is build from source and Configured DRBD with 2 Node testing with
Simplex Setup
Server 1 :
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Balaji
balajisun...@midascomm.com wrote:
Dear All,
Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is
2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10
DRBD is build from source and Configured DRBD with 2
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
Behalf Of cpol...@surewest.net
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 5:02 PM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Ext4 on CentOS 5.5 x64
Sorin Srbu wrote:
snip
Anyway, I get a bad block
PM
To: 'CentOS mailing list'
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Ext4 on CentOS 5.5 x64
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on
CentOS 5.5, how has it panned out? Does it perform as expected? How do you
feel the
stability, creation of the FS and the administration
Sorin Srbu wrote:
snip
Anyway, I get a bad block message when running fsck, and am not sure
whether this is a interface problem between the chair and the monitor or
something with the tech preview.
snip
Having just live through this issue, I recommend you run
the extended (long) SMART
On 1/28/2011 10:02 AM, cpol...@surewest.net wrote:
Sorin Srbu wrote:
snip
Anyway, I get a bad block message when running fsck, and am not sure
whether this is a interface problem between the chair and the monitor or
something with the tech preview.
snip
Having just live through this
Les Mikesell wrote:
Are there guidelines about what are reasonable results or will the
'Smart Health Status' tell you enough after the tests run?
In a recent study[1] of a large population of hard drives
these assertions stood out:
[A]fter their first scan error, drives are 39 times more
Hi all,
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on CentOS
5.5, how has it panned out? Does it perform as expected? How do you feel the
stability, creation of the FS and the administration of it is? Ideas and
comments welcome.
Thanks.
--
BW,
Sorin
On 27 January 2011 15:06, Sorin Srbu sorin.s...@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
Hi all,
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on CentOS
5.5, how has it panned out? Does it perform as expected? How do you feel the
stability, creation of the FS and the administration of it is?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:37 PM, James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 January 2011 15:06, Sorin Srbu sorin.s...@orgfarm.uu.se wrote:
Hi all,
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on CentOS
5.5, how has it panned out? Does it perform as expected? How
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on CentOS
5.5, how has it panned out? Does it perform as expected? How do you feel the
stability, creation of the FS and the administration of it is? Ideas and
comments welcome.
I've recently been using ext4 because I have servers
Original Message
Subject: Re: [CentOS] Ext4 on CentOS 5.5 x64
From: compdoc comp...@hotrodpc.com
To: 'CentOS mailing list' centos@centos.org
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:08:46 AM
For those of you that have been using the ext4 technology preview on CentOS
5.5, how has
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
