Patch applied fine. rebooted and I still see the error. For some reason
the kernel version #1 is not incrementing like it usually does. I did
check the bzImage file and lilo and it looks like I have the correct
kernel.
I saw something on the lkml about .version being clobbered before
Here's a patch to jfs 1.0.6 that I believe will fix the problem. I have
not tested it on 2.4.11-pre*, but it doesn't break anything on 2.4.10.
Dave
diff -Naur linux24-1.0.6/fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c linux24-new_inode/fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c
--- linux24-1.0.6/fs/jfs/jfs_imap.c Thu Sep 27 10:07:20 2001
Anthony Liu wrote:
I am not sure if this is related to the problem here, but currently
(1.0.6) will refuse to mount a dirty partition until you run fsck with
the -F:2 option, if it is the root partition then fsck will run during
boot anyway.
Running fsck -a should be sufficient to mark
Adrian Suri wrote:
Sorry if I was a little of topic but I know once one moves over to LVM/JFS fdisk be
it
windows/OS2/Linux
can destroy data on your disk
I'm not sure what gets destroyed. It's been a while since I played with
OS/2, but when I moved from OS/2 to Linux, the only thing I
own kernel, you know what to do. If not, I can build a Suse kernel with the
fix, but I won't be able to get it done until next week.
Thanks,
Dave Kleikamp
Forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 15:53:18 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: fs-crash after linux hang
Neil Carlson wrote:
In a further test, I copied a directory tree (~50MB) into a brand new
jfs partition, and then removed it. Prior to the copy, df showed 196KB
used in the partition (500MB), presumably for the journal/log. After
the cp/rm/sync it showed 332KB used. Unmounting the
szonyi calin wrote:
Hi
Some time ago i was using jfs on linux but it had a
bug.(Hanging at the last sync before unmounting
partition).(i heard it was fixed)
The question is:
It is safe to use jfs for a root partition ?
Yes, I've been running JFS on my root partition for some time now.
Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I'm currently running JFS 1.0.11 on my laptop, ...
I meant to say 1.0.12.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/mailman
On Friday 25 January 2002 09:20 am, Lenz Grimmer wrote:
Hi there,
does anybody have a good idea on how to solve Thomas' problem?
I am not aware of such a tool for JFS - is there another trick?
You could build a wrapper around xpeek. xpeek doesn't verify that the volume
is JFS (it probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
yesterday i checked the 1.0.13 version but i still have the same problem. The
FreePascal compiler freezes the system, only pinging the machine works (the
keyboard interrupt handler also seems to run, the num lock led is working)
Additionaly i had some
Andi Kleen wrote:
JFS sets a s_maxbytes value that is bigger than the page cache limit
on 32bit machines. This could lead to silent wrapping when a big file
write reaches the page cache limit, corrupting data at the beginning.
Yes, this would be a problem. But shouldn't the upper limit be
On Tuesday 26 February 2002 12:15 pm, Anthony Liu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 06:25:05PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 01:18:18AM +0800, Anthony Liu wrote:
Hi
Can someone please put back the version number in super.c:
printk(JFS development
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I think we should do it similar to the ext2 resizing patch and add a
resize= option to mount (or remount to be more precise).
I wasn't familiar with this approach, but I like it. I didn't really
like the ioctl on the root directory, but didn't have a better idea.
On Sunday 10 March 2002 10:39 am, Florin Iucha wrote:
When compiling linux/fs/jfs/namei.c file the following warnings
occured:
namei.c: In function `jfs_mkdir':
namei.c:200: warning: comparison is always false due to limited
range of data type
namei.c: In function `jfs_link':
On Sunday 10 March 2002 02:10 pm, Florin Iucha wrote:
Hello,
I have got linux-2.4 from vger patched with jfs-1.0.15 . The patches
applied cleanly.
I have rebooted with the new kernel and created a jfs partition on my
second disk (/dev/sdb1). I have copied some stuff (my /var directory)
On Thursday 14 March 2002 06:41 am, root wrote:
Hello,
I switched a debian (woody) system from ext2 to JFS a week ago
and now I'm experiencing some odd problems with a file. That file is
in the console-tools-libs package and has the following name:
On Thursday 14 March 2002 06:00 pm, Andi Kleen wrote:
Most other linux file systems just have the policy of leaving
such conversion to the user space by not interpreting the filenames.
Userspace can store UTF-8 if it wants and convert it to any other set
for display. How about supporting that
Jocki,
JFS (on OS/2 as well as Linux) has a problem dealing with files that
contain a character that doesn't map into the system codepage. (JFS
stores all pathnames in 16-byte unicode.)
One solution may be to make sure that nls_utf8.o is built either into
the kernel or as a module and mount
-0600
From: Dave Kleikamp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can import this changeset into BK by piping this whole message to
'| bk receive [path to repository]' or apply the patch as usual
On Thursday 21 March 2002 01:33 am, David Howells wrote:
As tmp is not referenced after the assembly, I removed it from
the output list and added it to the input list. This appears to
fix it. Do you see anything wrong with removing tmp from the
output list?
Yes. You've told the
On Thursday 21 March 2002 04:54 pm, David Howells wrote:
- : +m(sem-count), +d(tmp)
- : a(sem)
+ : =m(sem-count), +d(tmp)
+ : a(sem), m(sem-count)
Try replacing 'm(sem-count)' with '0(sem-count)' which should
link to
On Thursday 28 March 2002 12:21 pm, Eric P. McCoy wrote:
I'd also like to implement BSD- and e2fs-style file flags/attributes
(particularly user- and system-immutable and append-only inodes).
Obviously di_mode is where those belong, but I'll need at least 4
bits and there only _seem_ to be
On Thursday 28 March 2002 01:11 pm, Eric P. McCoy wrote:
The OS/2 refernce source on the website contains code for EA/ACL
support.
I can't seem to find it.
On our homepage, it's the last link under the Get the Source heading.
On Wednesday 10 April 2002 09:52 am, Steve Best wrote:
A very large part of extendfs functionality is in the file system,
like 100%. Doing this is user space is going to have some challenges,
like there several items that aren't exported by the file system
(i.e. creating a transaction, .)
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 07:07 am, Bas wrote:
Hi,
I noticed a typo in emergnecy help on fsck.jfs, mkfs.jfs and probably
the rest.
Thanks, we'll fix that.
And I wonder if something in fsck.jfs has changed. Now, when I call
fsck.jfs with a mountpoint, it exists with an error, but the
On Wednesday 24 April 2002 02:37 pm, Andrew Morton wrote:
I guess all this stuff is still a couple of weeks away from
readiness-for-inclusion.
I'll do a first send of the core writeback changes tonight.
JFS works OK with that code (well, it did in 2.5.8), but
I suspect that it's subtly
I'm sorry I haven't responded sooner.
Andrew Morton wrote:
Sorry, I broke it. I should have read the comment:
/*
* BUGBUG - Should we call filemap_fdatawrite here instead
* of fsync_inode_data?
* If we do, we have a
On Wednesday 15 May 2002 09:28, Joachim Selinger wrote:
Hi!
I'm using JFS as my main filesystem now for a long time now and am
very happy with it. As I'm about to install a newer system using LVM
it would be crucial for me to have the capability to resize the
overlying filesystem. AFAIK,
On Sunday 09 June 2002 09:19, Lightweight patch manager wrote:
This gets used to the new list_move macro three times. Remember you
need the list_move_* patch, which was sent to LKML by me this
morning.
I'll hang onto this and apply it when your patch is accepted into Linus'
kernel.
--
page allocations = 945055
page frees = 945056
Is it safe for page frees to be larger than page allocations?
I don't think the keeping of these statistics is SMP-safe, so on an SMP
machine, these numbers aren't completely reliable.
I know the server might have a hardware problem (is yet
On Thursday 11 July 2002 11:19, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 11:06:45AM -0500, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
We would want this in jfsutils and it would be supported. In fact
we will need to use it to manage an external journal as well, and
I'm sure we'll find other uses
On Sunday 21 July 2002 09:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This oops occurred during build of gcc..
Kernel 2.4.19-rc2-ac2.
About the same happens with 2.5.27. I will post an oops of jfsCommit
of 2.5.27 as soon as I get one.
I just built gcc on 2.4.19-rc3 + latest JFS and didn't have a problem.
No, it's built with JFS_DEBUG. That was the first thing I compiled into a
new kernel when I first encountered this.
I'll take another look at the oops. My initial thought was that if I was
right in my assumptions, a dereference in an ASSERT statement would have
caused a trap slightly earlier
On Monday 29 July 2002 10:16, Axel Siebenwirth wrote:
Hi,
I get an oops during boot of 2.5.29. Since I have problems with JFS I
guessed it might be related to JFS. It happens right after rw mount
of my jfs root filesystem. At another attempt to boot not the rm
process oops but mount itself
On Thursday 19 September 2002 12:51, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
I looked briefly at the patch. Just one question: If I use tar xvfz
to extract a gzip'ed ball, will all the files will be scattered into
different AGs? Thanks.
No, if one file is closed before the next file is created, JFS still
tries
I no longer see the need to keep the linux25 CVS tree up to date, so
unless someone still has a need for it, I'm going to leave it as it is.
I'll keep the linux24 tree going at least until all of the distributions
are up to 2.4.20. Now that JFS is in the mainline kernel, Linus and
Marcelo
On Friday 27 September 2002 10:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Starting with a post-2.4.10 release woul allow the code in CVS to be
much more similar to the 2.4.20-pre version, so I'd vote for removing
the old code. I'd bring it back in line if this is okay with the
users.
I would definitely
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 09:16, Steve Best wrote:
On a 32-bit machine, the file size is limited to 16 TB. (This is
also the maximum size of the volume.) This is due to constraints in
the Linux kernel. On a 64-bit machine, the file size can be as big
as 4 PB (2^52).
Steve,
As Jens
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:31, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I know :) That's why I think it should be a only replay log option
to fsck instead of a standalone util.
Okay. I agree. I was just making sure I understood. -l conflicts with
an e2fsck flag though. Maybe -O (opposite of -o).
--
On Thursday 17 October 2002 16:58, Scott Russell wrote:
If it's an 'obscure' option then the way to handle is to use a long
opt only I think. fsck.jfs --something. That way there is no
confusion and a user won't 'accidentally' invoke it.
Yeah, that would help avoid confusion.
Assuming that your machine has more than one processor, I think this
problem is fixed in the JFS 1.0.24. This was released on October 18th,
so it wouldn't have made it into Redhat 2.4.18-17.8.
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 08:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Howto increase my jfs FS online (mounted) ?
mount -oremount,resize /mount_point
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
___
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 09:17, SyvertsonJ wrote:
I am trying to put some files that are larger 2 Gig on an ext3 file
system.
This should work.
This file system is is running on an 2.4.13 version of the linux
kernel. An updated Caldera 3.1 OpenLinux distro.
Can ext2/3 do large file
On Thursday 16 January 2003 07:26, Uwe Kiewel wrote:
Jan 16 06:21:31 lab1 kernel: assert(!test_cflag(COMMIT_Nolink, ip))
Jan 16 06:21:31 lab1 kernel: kernel BUG at namei.c:480!
I think its a kernel bug, not an bug in jfs for linux.
I'd be interested in more details. Thanks!
Uwe
--
On Saturday 18 January 2003 04:49, Stefan Tibus wrote:
Also OS/2 seems unable to recognise linux's jfs partition
OS/2 allows JFS only on OS/2-LVM volumes. Any other JFS-formatted
partition is not recognized by OS/2.
Not exactly. OS/2 will only allow you to format an OS/2-LVM volume as
I'm not sure what's causing the problem, but Andrew Morton send me this
patch which gets rid of the problem for him. The fmt string that
jfs_err() is invoked with is sufficient to identify the location, so
__FILE__ and __LINE__ are not really needed anyway.
Linus, please apply.
Thanks,
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 09:04, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Ah, then it's a well-known 2.95 parser bug (sorry for not looking
better at it when sending my initial report). The following
alternative patch is sufficient to fix the compilation with 2.95
(it's your choice which of the two patches you
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 06:09, Juan Antonio Vera wrote:
Hi all.
I work with kernel 2.4.20 , lvm 1.0 and jfsutils 1.1.1. for 2 weeks
and I had 3 or 4 problems with jfs filesystems. The problems
basically happened
when I worked with office aplications (StarOffice) or copy files
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 10:32, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
The damage to the volume looks extensive. Is it possible that the
LVM volume modified in some harmful way?
... volume GOT modified ...
___
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http
On Friday 14 February 2003 12:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just begun using JFS 1.1.1 with kernel 2.4.18 (Debian Woody).
I note that block size is either 512, 1024, 2048 or 4096 bytes and
that 4096 is the default.
I looked at the man pages but didn't see an option to created a JFS
Release 1.1.2 of JFS was made available today.
Drop 65 on March 25, 2003 includes fixes to the file system and
utilities.
Utilities changes
- fix undefined reference to errno (G. D. Haraldsson)
- allow jfs_mkfs to run on regular file
- fix for-loop going past last element of vopen array
-
On Sunday 30 March 2003 12:54, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote:
I should've signed up for this list ages ago... :-)
I'm afraid it wouldn't have done you much good. This list only pertains
to JFS on Linux. :-(
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux Technology Center
On Monday 31 March 2003 08:10, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote:
Hmmm... I noticed some posts here concerning OS/2, so my assumption
(I know, I know :-) ) was that this was for JFS on all platforms.
Does JFS on Linux handle the lost+found directory contents much
differently than on OS/2, Dave?
No.
On Monday 31 March 2003 08:35, Lewis G Rosenthal wrote:
Thanks. Essentially, then, this works like the FOUND directory
structure under HPFS. I changed the flags on the contents of
lost+found yesterday evening, and started poking around. The majority
of the files were small (actually, they were
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 13:31, Chris Stromsoe wrote:
A decoded oops report, the output from /proc/fs/jfs/*, and the
ver_linux output is included below. The kernel is stock 2.4.20 with
JFS 1.1.2 from http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs/
-Chris
Chris,
Thanks for the report. I think it's
On Friday 06 June 2003 07:32, Harri Haataja wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 11:41:50AM -0400, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
Steve Best wrote:
Ron Arts wrote:
Steve Best wrote:
Ron Arts wrote:
I am looking for a linux filesystem that supports compression.
I found that AIX JFS does support
On Monday 23 June 2003 05:34, Szonyi Calin wrote:
Hi
Accidentally I filled up my jfs root partition.
After that I had some crashes with jfs
Below is the dmesg and the crash.
I think I found the problem. The patch below should fix it. I will try
to reproduce the problem and verify that
On Wednesday 25 June 2003 14:36, Laszlo Monda wrote:
Hi,
I am using JFS with CryptoAPI. When the system accidentally crashes
and I reboot and correctly type the password the autorepair procedure
doesn't happen as it is expected by me.
I'm not familiar with using CryptoAPI, but I found this:
On Thursday 03 July 2003 10:27, Westerman, J.D. wrote:
Can I take a jfs file system that I have created on AIX and import it
on a Linux server running the 2.4.20 kernel?
No, JFS for AIX and Linux use different on-disk formats. :^(
Thanks
JD
Thanks,
Shaggy
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux
On Thursday 03 July 2003 12:03, Tejaswi Redkar wrote:
Hi! Below is the procedure and the error, could you tell me what I
did wrong ?
1) Red Hat 9.0
2) Downloaded jfs-2.4-1.1.2.tar.gz from the web site and unzipped
3) Copied the jfs directory from the 2.4-1.1.2 to the
/use/src/linux.../fs
On Thursday 03 July 2003 13:20, Tejaswi Redkar wrote:
Hi!
Where should I download the patch/files from ?
I tried them here
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/jfs/
That's the right place. This patch hasn't made it into a release yet.
(We're due for another release.) The very
On Monday 14 July 2003 20:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The patch below is just cleanup.
1) page_offset as calculated in __get_metapage is always 0.
Please go through the variable substitution/calculation
to verify.
If the PAGE_CACHE_SIZE is greater than 4096, page_offset may be greater
Those 128 bytes in the dtree page are the slot array. It is documented
here: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-jfslayout/#h7
This is a sorted table of slot numbers with the page. This allows new
entries to be inserted into the slot table without having to move the
directory
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 04:15, Szonyi Calin wrote:
It seems that fsck is trying to open the partition exclusively
and because it can't it doesn't want to operate.
The root filesystem cannot be opened exclusively because other
programs are using it. See atached file lsof-hda6 for details.
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 10:32, Szonyi Calin wrote:
There is still a problem with the fact that the filesystem was marked clean
when actually it should be marked dirty.
Fsck says that Filesystem is dirty but is marked clean.
See atached file (fsck-f) for details.
Hmm. but is marked clean is
On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 04:06, szonyi calin wrote:
it seems that gcc-2.95.3 doesn't like the definition of
fsck_send_msg
gcc version:
Reading specs from
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-slackware-linux/2.95.3/specs
gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)
We were bit by this one once before in with the
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 07:55, Alessandro Salvatori wrote:
echo * does even make login crash! :D
The same memory exhausted crash? If there is an oops in
/var/log/messages, I'd be interested.
i'll iterate... suggestions about bounds to the inode numbers in the for loop?
thank you very much
On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 12:47, Christian Zoffoli wrote:
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/JFS/jfsutils-1.1.3/fsck# ./jfs_fsck -f /dev/ataraid/d0p2
./jfs_fsck version 1.1.3, 05-Sep-2003
processing started: 10/20/2003 17.39.55
The current device is: /dev/ataraid/d0p2
Block size in bytes: 4096
Filesystem
On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 12:22, blair wrote:
Hi all,
I have JFS setup on a rather large raid array. I keep the log file on
a different filesystem for performance reasons. What happens if the
log file gets corrupted or deleted. IE I lose the disk that the log
file is on.
If you are
Release 1.1.4 of JFS was made available today.
Drop 67 on October 30, 2003 includes fixes to the file system and
utilities.
Utilities changes
- Work around gcc 2.95 bug
- Handle log full without crashing
- Message format fix
File System changes
- Make sure journal buffer gets flushed to disk
On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 20:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
as reported earlier on this mailinglist I had problems
mounting an JFS partition - it failed to mount when
connected to an external device.
Meanwhile I managed to make the problem reproduce fixable:
mounting the JFS
On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 03:36, szonyi calin wrote:
Hi
There is a file in the kbd package with an unicode filename
which i cannot delete.
Kernel 2.6.0-test9
jfs-utils 1.1.4
util-linux 2.11.z
Which file is this?
ls says: No such file or directory
Default NLS for kernel is iso8859-2
utf
On Sat, 2003-11-15 at 08:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am using JFS with 2.4.20 on debian, running on a PowerMac clone. The
kernel is debian's 2.4.20-4-powerpc. Is there a way to for me to get an
idea about what version of JFS kernel code I am actually running without
source code to
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 16:52, Zhihui Zhang wrote:
Hi,
I have been studying JFS on and off for quite a while. But I can never be
as sure as the experts who really work on JFS on a daily basis. So would
you please clarify the following points for me:
(1) Dirty metapages are usually marked
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 04:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just had a lock up on linux-2.6.0-test11 (with prempt, but it
appears to work on this setup). The end result was that my main data
partition on a 40G drive with JFS file system appears to be irreversably
corrupted to the point where
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 18:43, WEI Yongjun wrote:
Hello,
I have some questions about device number extension.
In Linux kernel 2.6, device number will be extended from 16-bit to
32-bit. All utilities and libraries should make corresponding
extension for this new feature in kernel 2.6.
I
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 09:06, Bjoern JACKE wrote:
Hi,
there has been discussion about charset conversion in JFS once or
twice before, for example on
http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/bugs/?func=detailbugbug_id=3387group_id=35
I want to bring this topic up once more. JFS is the only
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 10:17, Bjoern JACKE wrote:
On 2004-01-20 at 09:30 -0600 Dave Kleikamp sent off:
This is a shame. This JFS was designed on OS/2, where it was possible
for the kernel to convert to the user's charset, since the process's
locale was available to the kernel. JFS has no way
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 10:25, szonyi calin wrote:
Sorry for asking
What character set should we use default when we mount a
jfs filesystem with a 2.6 kernel ?
I use utf8 but sometimes i have the problem described above.
If you are starting from scratch, iso8859-1 will transparently convert
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 11:32, Bjoern JACKE wrote:
I would in fact use cp1250. cp1250 is very much like iso8859-1 but
defines all 255 characters. If you already have a JFS partition, which
contains non-ASCII filenames and which was iocharset=utf8 mounted, you
should save away the non-ascii
On Sat, 2004-01-24 at 08:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi guys
At one point or another, X/DRI caused my computer to crash and I was able
to do Alt+SysRq+s to sync the disks before I had to do a hard reset.
However on bootup I noticed that /home/sunny was missing (but all the
other user
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 13:15, Florian Huber wrote:
Hello MLs,
today I switched from no-raid to linux kernel software raid 1 on a jfs
and a ext3 partition. Both are working fine, but jfs_fsck reports an
error on the jfs md device (md2 -- hda3+hdc3):
Superblock is corrupt and cannot be
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 13:39, Florian Huber wrote:
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 20:28, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
I wonder if JFS is having trouble getting the partition size. Can you
run jfs_fsck with the -v flag to see what part of the superblock it
doesn't like?
The current device is: /dev/md2
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 06:37, Tobias Bengtsson wrote:
Hi!
Hi, Sorry it's taken me so long to respond.
kernel BUG at fs/jfs/jfs_dmap.c:2686!
I've seen a similar bug reported before, but it occurs only rarely. I'm
not sure what the cause is. My initial thought was the the block map
got
On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 00:39, Tim Connors wrote:
I submitted a bug to the jfs people, because jfs incorrectly returns
-EINVAL (this isn't even documented in man pages as a valid return
from open()) from an open() on a filename with UTF-8 in it.
See
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 09:44, John P Janosik wrote:
We got a kernel error in /var/log/messages when cancelling an unmount of a
JFS filesystem with ctrl-c on kernel 2.4.24 + jfsutils 1.1.4 on Intel. I
am wondering if we should not have cancelled the unmount.
I'm not sure you can cancel the
Release 1.1.5 of jfsutils was made available today.
This release include the following changes to the utilities:
- Fix problem creating entries in lost+found
- Fix buffer overflow
- Fix replaying of symlink journal records
- Improve performance of duplicate block checking
- Fix segfault when
On Tue, 2004-03-09 at 04:15, Zeno R.R. Davatz wrote:
Hi
My HDD with jfs does not want to get mounted.
I do fsck.jfs -f and I get:
Phase 1-6 ok
Phase 7: Errors detected in the Fileset File/Directory Allocation Map control
information
Phase 8: Incorrect data detected in disk allocation
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 08:49, Domenico Di Tullio wrote:
Hello,
I would to know for the jfs file system the follows charateristics :
- max total number of files;
This is limited by the 32-bit inode number, so just under 4G.
-max total number of directories;
again just under 4G. files +
On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 12:55, Andreas Theofilu wrote:
Hi to all,
Since kernel 2.6.4 I'm not able to access files with a special character
in the file name, such as the german umlaute. Every attempt to access such
a file gives me the error: cannot stat file
I did this to you. I changed jfs's
On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 09:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe the problem is that the jfs on /dev/sdb still thinks it is
mounted?
because of the JFS state: mounted?
Yes, that would be it.
if that might be the reason, is there any way to reset the state to
not mounted or whatever it might
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 09:48, Mike Young wrote:
Im trying to obtain the acls and ea patches for kernel 2.4.22.
However, the PHP redirection seems to be breaking on me and I cant
ever get to the actual patch. Can someone forward this to me?
The website has been a bit flaky lately. I've
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 08:06, Janusz Zamecki wrote:
After booting 2.4.21-199 standard SuSe 9 kernel, it works OK (can be
mounted in rw mode).
And then, after booting 2.6.5-rc3 again, everything is OK.
I figured this one out. There's a bug that is only triggered when the
current position of
On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 14:17, Mike Young wrote:
Hi,
I know when we talk about 64-bit support, we often look at the
file-system. Theres also been much work to add LBD support too.
However, does anyone know where the 32-bit inode limit is addressed?
I'm not sure what you mean by inode
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 10:02, Mike Young wrote:
Hi Dave,
But that means that you can't have more than 16TBytes worth of files on a
Xeon-based system. So, even though the file-system can go quite large,
there is still a limit:
2^32*4096, which is 16TB.
That's right.
If we i_ino a long
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 10:31, Mike Young wrote:
Actually Dave, you've been very helpful. And I really appreciate it. It
does sound like this limit is a soft limit, which, though it may not be
addressed by the community on 32-bit platforms, could be tweaked and
patches provided.
This can be
Josh,
I haven't forgotten about you. I've been looking at this problem off
and on and I think I might have figured out what caused the problem.
It looks like what should have been a list of data extents in an inode
had been overridden by the value of a symlink. After trying to figure
out how
On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 13:57, Brad Viviano wrote:
Hello,
I have searched the archive of this list, and other online resources
and can not seem to find the answer. If I missed a spot and this has already
been answered please point me at the right spot. I am using JFS version 1.1.2
On Wed, 2004-04-28 at 06:05, szonyi calin wrote:
--- Curtis Magyar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a crit : Hello.
I seem to be having some trouble with a file on my JFS root
partition in
Linux 2.6.5. The problem presented itself when I attempted to
rm -rf a
directory, and it resulted in:
Release 1.1.6 of jfsutils was made available today.
This release include the following changes to the utilities:
- Verify Directory Index Table and reset it if necessary
For more details about JFS, please see our website:
http://oss.software.ibm.com/jfs
--
David Kleikamp
IBM Linux
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
