Am 2017-12-29 21:35, schrieb Adam Borowski:
resize2fs -b $DEV
tune2fs -O metadata_csum $DEV
fsck.ext4 -D $DEV
According to this wiki:
https://ext4.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Ext4_Metadata_Checksums
should we also use option journal_checksum on mount?
Jochen
Quoting Adam Borowski (kilob...@angband.pl):
[enabling metadata checksums on relatively old ext4 filesystems:]
> Thus, if you created your filesystem with mkfs.ext4 older than
> stretch/ascii, it's vital that you do the following, on an unmounted
> filesystem (ie, need to boot from alternate medi
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 08:41:13PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100
> Harald Arnesen wrote:
>
> > I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either.
> > But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and
> > have not had any (file
On 29/12/17 13:57, Rick Moen wrote:
> One can also reasonably say that the ext2/ext3/ext4 codebase has
> benefited from more real-world testing than any other *ix fileystem code
> in history. (ext4 departs significantly more from ext3 than the latter
> did from ext2, as detailed here:
> https://
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 08:49:56PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development.
That's what worries me about btrfs.
'''
'''
> As for its state: btrfs is, well, btrfs. You get
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:11:35AM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> In other words, I prioritized the extreme amount of user testing of
> ext4 over the obvious convenience of btrfs. My prioritization isn't
> universal: In fact, I'm probably in the minority. But it's worked for
> me.
I'm in the same m
Quoting Steve Litt (sl...@troubleshooters.com):
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100
> Harald Arnesen wrote:
>
> > I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either.
> > But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and
> > have not had any (filesystem) pro
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:15:10 +0100
Harald Arnesen wrote:
> I see what you mean, and I have never had a problem with ext4 either.
> But I have used btrfs on all my main machines for the last years, and
> have not had any (filesystem) problems with them either. I'd like to
> see empirical evidence
Den 2017-12-28 17:11, skrev Steve Litt:
> That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup
> solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with
> less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than
> ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at least
Le 28/12/2017 à 20:49, Adam Borowski a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development.
Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from
their roadmap.
And why would Red Hat matter?
Adam Borowski wrote (excerpted):
> As for its state: btrfs is, well, btrfs. You get both extremely powerful
> data protection features you won't want to live without, and WTF level
> caveats. I wouldn't recommend using btrfs unless you know where the corpses
> are buried.
>
> But if you do, you
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development.
> Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from
> their roadmap.
And why would Red Hat matter? It's similar to as if Apple dropped an iTun
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:03:12PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
> > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
> > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
>
> I have tried btrfs; it still runs on a few servers I have installed.
Quoting Dr. Nikolaus Klepp (dr.kl...@gmx.at):
> Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 schrieb Rick Moen:
> > Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org):
>
> > My one-time colleague Ted T'so once wrote an excellent piece, that I
> > can't find at the moment, about how ext2/ext3 code had necessarily
>
Steve Litt wrote:
> That's exactly my point. To do something better than my backup
> solution, I would have needed to go with something less tested, with
> less complete supporting software, and something I trust less than
> ext4. I haven't had ext4 mess up on me in at least 6 years. Even ext2
>
On Fri, 29 Dec 2017 01:33:43 +1100
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
> On 28/12/17 15:05, Rick Moen wrote:
> > ECC RAM is not sufficient to catch all bad RAM problems, only some.
> > Back in 2006, I had an interesting case of this:
> > http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-December/002662.html
> >
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 11:33:13 +0100
Harald Arnesen wrote:
> Den 28.12.2017 01:51, skrev Steve Litt:
>
> > The one downfall of my method is if you absolutely, positively need
> > atomic backups: database files, for instance. You'd need to stop
> > work on the computer being backed up. In the case
On 12/27/2017 01:34 PM, taii...@gmx.com wrote:
Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to
XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption.
Ahh late night typo for me, correction - ZFS not XFS.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@
On 28/12/17 11:51, Steve Litt wrote:
> Being a fan of simplicity, I use ext4 on all partitions. No LVM: I
> don't want the extra layer. With things like bind mount I can
> temporarily move parts of one filetree to a different partition, and
> the next time I full-install or buy a new computer or
On 28/12/17 15:05, Rick Moen wrote:
> ECC RAM is not sufficient to catch all bad RAM problems, only some.
> Back in 2006, I had an interesting case of this:
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-December/002662.html
> http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/conspire/2006-December/002668.html
>
Den 2017-12-28 12:18, skrev KatolaZ:
> I lost several filesystems with buggy reiserfs versions, back in the
> days, and refused to use it ever again, basically because ext3 had
> become reliable and dependable in the meanwhile. Then Hans Raiser
> stopped its development, for other reasons...
He
> ext3/ext4 are solid fs, and have
> always been. the lost+found folder is a remainder of the ext2 era, and
> is not even mandatory any more, AFAIU.
lost+found is required since ext3+ext4 permit mounting as ext2, which requires
it. A poor reason, perhaps, but put differently getting rid of a sing
Quoting Didier Kryn (k...@in2p3.fr):
> I'm reluctant to use ext3/ext4 because I don't understand why they
> still have this strange lost+found directory, which signs a kind of
> weakness.
It's just a receiving area for fragments (inodes without corresponding
filenames) that might in the future be
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 12:03:12PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
> >As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
> >available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
>
> I switched from ext2 to Reiserfs many years ago, when Reiser was the
>
On 12/28/2017 01:03 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
[snip]> From reading this thread, I learned that ZFS has severe hardware
> requirements;
If all features are enabled then the RAM requirements are outrageous.
However, some of the memory hogs might not be missed if they are turned
off. Depends on you
Le 27/12/2017 à 01:05, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
I switched from ext2 to Reiserfs many years ago, when Reiser was
the first and only journalled filesystem. After that switch I have never
Den 28.12.2017 01:51, skrev Steve Litt:
> The one downfall of my method is if you absolutely, positively need
> atomic backups: database files, for instance. You'd need to stop work
> on the computer being backed up. In the case of my Daily Driver
> Desktop, which contains 3,874,727 files, the ent
Am Donnerstag, 28. Dezember 2017 schrieb Rick Moen:
> Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org):
[snip]
> My one-time colleague Ted
> T'so once wrote an excellent piece, that I can't find at the moment,
> about how ext2/ext3 code had necessarily been written with a defensive
> attitude,
[...]
Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org):
> Den 27.12.2017 19:34, skrev taii...@gmx.com:
>
> > Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to
> > XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption.
>
> And a UPS.
To summarise the summary of the summary, concerning t
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:20:58 -0800
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
>
> > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
> > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
> >
> > But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a
> > pro
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 at 21:59:27 +0100
Harald Arnesen wrote:
> Den 27.12.2017 19:34, skrev taii...@gmx.com:
>
>> Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to
>> XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption.
>
> And a UPS.
And an earthquake-proof vault to house
Den 27.12.2017 19:34, skrev taii...@gmx.com:
> Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to
> XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption.
And a UPS.
--
Hilsen Harald
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://ma
Please remember that all RAID should have ECC RAM and when it comes to
XFS it is MANDATORY to avoid massive data corruption.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Quoting Harald Arnesen (har...@skogtun.org):
> Den 27.12.2017 02:20, skrev Rick Moen:
>
> > btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development.
> > Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from
> > their roadmap.
>
> That's your opinion.
Nobody will
Quoting KatolaZ (kato...@freaknet.org):
> IMHO Canonical is playing with fire with their (obviously wrong)
> interpretation of the querelle, since Oracle has never ever been a
> fair player...
My recollection is that the stakeholders whose copyright would be
infringed by an unauthorised derivativ
Den 27.12.2017 02:20, skrev Rick Moen:
> btrfs is still scarily beta after rather a lot of years of development.
> Its prospects have dimmed further now that Red Hat have dropped it from
> their roadmap.
That's your opinion.
--
Hilsen Harald
___
Dng ma
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 09:50:07PM -0800, Josef Grosch wrote:
> On 12/26/17 6:22 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> >> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> >>
> [ DELETED ]
> >
> > I'll have about half a gig of RAM. Does this rule o
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 01:42:56AM +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote:
[cut]
>
> You can legally, if I understand correctly, build ZFS in to a Linux
> Kernel yourself, but you cannot (due to license restriction), do so and
> provide it for others to use "as is", everyone whom want to use it in a
> Li
Hi,
On 27/12/17 16:50, Josef Grosch wrote:
> A good place to start is ZFS On Linux (http://zfsonlinux.org/) This project
> is being run by the bright boys and girls at Lawrence Livermore National Lab,
> our tax dollars at work. Yes, it is covered by a GPLv2-incompatible
> licence[1] (CDDL), but
On 12/26/17 6:22 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
>>
[ DELETED ]
>
> I'll have about half a gig of RAM. Does this rule out ZFS or just
> make it moderately slower? I'm not going to be running mi
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
[RAID1:]
> It's not backup in any normally robust sense of the word. It does
> provide a bit of backup against one potential threat -- minor
> localized hard drive failures.
Which is properly called rendundancy, in contrast to backup. (You mig
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 05:20:58PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
>
> > As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
> > available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
> >
> > But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a
>
Quoting Hendrik Boom (hend...@topoi.pooq.com):
> As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
> available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
>
> But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a
> prolematic license, and I don't know about XFS.
>
> I've onece heard a
As I understand it, there are a few new file systems somewhat
available on Linux -- ZFS, XFS, and Btrfs.
But soe are still under development, ZFS is pparently under a
prolematic license, and I don't know about XFS.
I've onece heard about one of the new systems that one shouldn't
bother using i
44 matches
Mail list logo