On 08/10/2013 02:28 AM, Christian Kujau wrote:
> Interesting stuff. Out of curiosity I just tried this myself, both client
> & server are virtual machines running Debian/stable (3.2.0-4-amd64) and I
> was able to reproduce this. A test case would be:
>

I still haven't rebooted that machine - last chance to ask for any test info - 
as it looks like you 
have a test case anyway.

I haven't lost any data that I know of  - just programs complaining etc.

IMO, at one time, jfs was really a better choice ( good set of tools). Even in 
a few cases where 
hardware failed the jfs tools worked well. Today with everyone banging on ext4 
it has become the 
better choice. ( I don't think IBM is interested in supporting jfs - no idea if 
they are phasing out 
jfs2? ).




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schmidt                                  EMail [email protected]
Transtronics, Inc.                              WEB 
http://secure.transtronics.com
3209 West 9th Street                             Ph (785) 841-3089
Lawrence, KS 66049                              FAX (785) 841-0434

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests.
The great achievements of civilization have not come from
government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under
order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the
automobile industry that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. 
Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. 
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Jfs-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jfs-discussion

Reply via email to