On 08/17/2018 10:34 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:00:11PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
16 sie 2018 15:26 Matej Mužila
mmuz...@redhat.com napisał(a):Hi,
I've orphaned the rocksdb package. Nothing depends on it and it seems that
it is not needed in Fedora.
Isn't rocksdb
On 01/14/2016 07:29 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
C - Find maintainers ( I would volunteer - I'd have to learn packaging)
>
>I'd certainly be willing to assist if it were allowed.
I will be honest and say I do not foresee this being allowed in an
official capacity. People are better off using the
On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well that's exactly what it is, go away I'm busy with other stuff :). The
fact is I'm the only one who can drive btrfs as the default filesystem feature
in Fedora, and since I've left Red Hat that has become much less of an
priority for me. But my
On 10/06/2014 10:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 10/06/2014 08:54 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well that's exactly what it is, go away I'm busy with other stuff :). The
fact is I'm the only one who can drive btrfs as the default
On 10/06/2014 10:30 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/6/14 7:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2014 02:29 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
Now, there is another question which has not been voiced: what is
the plan for filessystems in Fedora (and by implication RHEL)?
Is it BTRFS? Or, perhaps is it
On 03/04/2014 11:26 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/28/2014 03:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As a server WG member I voted +1 on XFS as I have no particular objection to
XFS as a filesystem, but I do think it seems a bit sub-optimal for us to wind
up with server and desktop having defaults
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:32 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014 7:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com
mailto:sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/03/2014 08:51 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 03:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
So if you were asking me Are we
On 03/03/2014 04:40 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:22:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 03/03/2014 09:16 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 03/03/2014 04:06 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP
On 03/03/2014 11:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without totally
hiding other options.
You
On 03/03/2014 11:29 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 3/3/14, 3:16 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 16:16 +0200, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I am fine with something like what is proposed by Steve above - let users have
the GUI present an option that gives preference to the default without
On 02/28/2014 06:20 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
by default we put ext4 on LVM
The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently.
It can be done, the convert tool should work, and
On 02/28/2014 07:56 AM, James Wilson Harshaw IV wrote:
Yet what was the main point that it wasn't ready yet? My point is we should
choose the best solution, even if it takes a little more work to get it up and
running. I want to know what it will take to make sure btrfs is good to go as
On 03/01/2014 08:51 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Murphyli...@colorremedies.com said:
There are good reasons to use XFS by default for Server.
Are they listed somewhere?
XFS has many advantages:
* best performance for most workloads (especially with high speed storage and
On 03/01/2014 10:19 PM, Jon wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
If you use a dm-thin target with a shared storage pool (even if the file system
On 03/02/2014 01:17 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Can we get some definition of legacy here? kernel/nfs-utils versions?
I'd have to check what I can share. If it helps: not current RHEL or
recent Fedora, until recently some that were over five years old. Also
this comment in the XFS FAQ: Beware that
On 02/27/2014 02:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/27/2014 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com
mailto:jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be
On 10/23/2013 03:09 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Should systemctl stop foo.service stop all parent and child service processes?
Example: GlusterFS starts a service daemon (glusterd) and a brick daemon
(glusterfsd). When a user issues systemctl stop glusterd the service daemon
is stopped but
On 09/24/2013 10:25 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 7:34 PM, William Brown will...@firstyear.id.au wrote:
Additionally, with the concerns re device shrink. Yes, XFS won't let you
shrink, but with thin provision LVM that isn't so much an issue: You
just shrink the pv and leave it
On 09/25/2013 10:48 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:12 AM, Ric Wheeler rwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
We should not confuse TRIM that gets handled at the device layer (and is a
slow, non-queued S-ATA command for example) and a dm-thin parsing of that same
command in software which
On 09/25/2013 12:48 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
https://patrick-nagel.net/blog/archives/337
He provides no reliable testing method. I don't consider his results to be
scientific or useful. One blogger will not be enough evidence.
You should - and can - easily test
On 09/25/2013 01:29 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Ric Wheeler wrote:
You should - and can - easily test your workload with your hardware/software
stack to see if the options make a difference.
Of course I can, but the issue is comparison. I can run tests all day long
that may not stress
On 07/31/2013 10:32 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29 2013 at 2:48pm -0400,
Eric Sandeen sandeenatredhat.com wrote:
On 7/27/13 11:56 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 26.07.13 22:13, Miloslav Trmač (mitr at volny.cz) wrote:
Hello all,
with thin provisioning available, the total
On 07/29/2013 10:01 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jul 29, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
Yep, we need to be able to report free space on filesystems, so that
apps provisioning virtual machines can get an idea of how much storage
they can provide to VMs without
On 07/29/2013 10:18 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 08:01:23AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jul 29, 2013, at 6:30 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
Yep, we need to be able to report free space on filesystems, so that
apps provisioning virtual machines
On 07/29/2013 03:05 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Friday, July 26, 2013 09:29:41 PM Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 7/26/13 3:13 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
A quick way to check whether your package is likely to be affected, is
to look for statfs() or statvfs() calls in C, or the equivalent in
your
On 07/29/2013 03:50 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com said:
How does the audit system determine space available? If it's using btrfs
configured for raid1 or raid10, df and stat will report the total storage of
all devices in the volume, unlike md
On 07/29/2013 04:35 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 29.07.13 13:48, Eric Sandeen (sand...@redhat.com) wrote:
Well, I am pretty sure the burden must be on the file systems to report
a useful estimate free blocks value in statfs()/statvfs(). Exporting that
problem to userspace and
On 07/29/2013 05:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 29.07.13 16:52, Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) wrote:
Oh, we don't assume it's all ours. We recheck regularly, immediately
before appending to the journal files, of course assuming that we are
not the only writers.
With thinly
On 06/04/2013 10:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
(such
On 05/16/2013 02:39 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 16.05.13 12:20, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
There have been no crashes, so ext4 doesn't need fsck on every boot:
4.051s systemd-fsck-root.service
515ms
On 05/15/2013 05:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/15/2013 04:39 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I was planning to upgrade to F19 soon, and I kind-of care about the data on
that system (I have backup, but corruption would not be welcome, just for the
lost time reason). Do people recommend
On 04/02/2013 10:26 AM, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 03/04/13 01:08, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 4/1/13 5:26 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
On 04/02/2013 12:19 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Steven Haigh net...@crc.id.au wrote:
Hi all,
Firstly, Please CC me into replies as I'm not
On 01/23/2013 03:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 12:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Mistakenly left this paragraph incomplete, completion follows:
I understand that btrfs is a Different Way Of Doing Things, but I don't
think it flies to tell people 'yeah, the tools you've
On 01/16/2013 11:41 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/16/2013 04:23 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/16/13 10:04 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com
mailto:jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
It affects also compilation,
On 10/31/2012 07:54 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/31/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
It's already been pushed back once, the first iteration of newui was
attempted to land in F-17 and was pushed back to F-18 if my memory
serves me correctly.
Dont think it did
So I think we
On 10/31/2012 10:33 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/31/2012 02:13 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
You know what the storage team does right?
As far as I know there only exist individual developers working on storage be
it filesystem or direct storage solution.
You for btrfs and Eric for ext
On 10/31/2012 11:39 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/31/12 10:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/31/2012 02:57 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
A good place to see a summary of the broad community work is the annual Linux
Storage and File System Workshop (LSF). You can google for the recent notes
On 06/07/2012 01:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/07/2012 05:29 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
Do we really need to create a feature page for that and follow the
approval process?
Seems too heavy weight to me for effectively rebasing a package...
It is certainly not required. Feature process
On 06/06/2012 07:56 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Peter Robinsonpbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEYkkeit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 05/30/2012 02:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Yes, for the Fedora side of things I think
On 01/24/2012 05:36 AM, Frederic Muller wrote:
On 01/24/2012 06:16 PM, Greg wrote:
On 24/01/2012 5:11 PM, Frederic Muller wrote:
Hi!
Some may remember I was struggling with my old (but faithful) T60 and
rawhide because of poor performance and increased heat. I have
therefore upgraded my
On 11/09/2011 01:56 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tomasz Torczto...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:41:28PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Tomas Mraztm...@redhat.com wrote:
On the today's FESCo meeting we discussed the request to
On 10/05/2011 04:01 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/05/2011 12:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 11:38:18PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/04/2011 05:30 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
XFS has been proven at this scale on Linux for a very long time, is all.
the why rh do
On 10/04/2011 03:12 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 10/04/2011 01:03 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Large filesystem support for ext4 has languished upstream for a very
long time, and few in the community seemed terribly interested to test it,
either.
why? that's what i simple do not understand!?...
On 10/04/2011 07:19 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 10/03/2011 06:33 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 10/3/11 5:13 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 04:11:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
testing something more real-world (20T ... 500T?) might still be
interesting.
Here's my
On 08/08/2011 01:44 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Hello,
In order to hopefully (and I understand this is a unrealistically big
hope) stem the amount of hostile comments and random remarks about
Btrfs not being ready for F16 that I get with _every_ bz that get's
filed against it, let me announce
I have a shiny new laptop (HP Pavilion dm4) with the Sandy Bridge video (HD
3000). Installing F15 or the nightly F16 build causes a blank screen during the
install. Installing/running basic video works but is annoying.
I have spent a few days poking around, looking for known issues. Is this
On 08/03/2011 10:13 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 8/3/11 8:58 AM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I have a shiny new laptop (HP Pavilion dm4) with the Sandy Bridge video (HD
3000). Installing F15 or the nightly F16 build causes a blank screen during
the
install. Installing/running basic video works
On 07/27/2011 06:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 06:43 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
What specifically does systemd do that autofs does not do without it?
I don't know if there is anything, but it's neat to get something like
this 'free' with systemd, without having to add any
On 07/27/2011 01:23 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 07:07 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/26/2011 02:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 07:24 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
should not be surprised that you see resistance (what new capability does
NFS
get from
On 07/26/2011 02:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 07:24 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
should not be surprised that you see resistance (what new capability does NFS
get from the systemd changes for example!).
reliable on-demand automounting, for a start. for which you already
On 07/22/2011 10:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 22.07.2011 16:33, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 21.07.2011 13:14, schrieb Bryn M. Reeves:
On 07/20/2011 11:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
hopefully systemd will aslo live for 40
On 07/22/2011 12:47 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2011 04:37 PM, Ric Wheeler wrote:
MD, NFS, clustering have complicated and complex needs. The systemd team -
not
just the developers of those subsystems - need to be directly engaged and
proactive in getting all of these critical
On 07/20/2011 12:18 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Benjamin Lewisben.le...@benl.co.uk wrote:
On 07/20/2011 04:07 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello all,
Fedora 16 will start user UIDs and GIDs at 1000 instead of 500[1].
Unfortunately some packages need to know the
On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
I normally build systems with (at least!) a separate /boot, / and /home.
This lets me do a full install, blow away old fedora system partitions and
not lose any user data.
On 07/20/2011 01:19 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:29 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
I normally build systems with (at least!) a separate /boot, / and /home
On 07/20/2011 02:06 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 13:52 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/20/2011 01:19 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 12:29 -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 07/20/2011 12:28 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee
On 07/14/2011 08:28 AM, JB wrote:
Josef Bacikjosefat toxicpanda.com writes:
...
We aren't aiming for hopefully stable, we're aiming for actually stable
and reasonably safe. If we don't meet certain basic requirements no
switch will be made and everything will carry on as normal.
I'm not
On 07/14/2011 09:50 AM, JB wrote:
Ric Wheelerrwheelerat redhat.com writes:
...
Given that my family is from the hills of eastern
Kentucky, I also find the hill billie comment off putting.
...
Ric, no offense ... injecting Kentucky hills was misguided ... I happened to
visit the state
On 07/14/2011 11:08 AM, JB wrote:
Ric Wheelerrwheelerat redhat.com writes:
...
I think that it would be really rare to see pristine, academic algorithms
implemented exactly as a non-coding mathematician designed them in code :)
...
Well, not convinced ... :-)
The algorithm has to be
On 07/14/2011 03:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:13:56AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Well it should be more like
/boot/dev/sda1
swap/dev/sda2
btrfs
Maybe I don't understand this. Is btrfs on /dev/sda3, or are the swap
and root filesystems somehow combined
On 07/14/2011 02:54 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Genes MailListsli...@sapience.com wrote:
I think RAID-5 support would be reasonably important to have too ... I
dont think we want to have raid on top of btrfs ... right?
Ric - what is the current status of
On 07/11/2011 02:22 AM, Steve Dickson wrote:
On 07/10/2011 07:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 10.07.11 13:32, Steve Dickson (ste...@redhat.com) wrote:
Hey,
On 07/10/2011 11:32 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Improvement means change, and change will inevitably upset some people
who
On 04/14/2011 05:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com writes:
W dniu 14 kwietnia 2011 11:04 użytkownik Andreas Schwab
sch...@redhat.com napisał:
Michał Piotrowskimkkp...@gmail.com writes:
But the question remains - should enabled barriers protect against
such
On 03/02/2011 10:30 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
On 02/03/11 11:23, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 02:51:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
2) Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use
BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default.
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
BTRFS so far only
On 02/25/2011 08:52 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/25/2011 04:06 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Ric Wheelerrwhee...@redhat.comwrote:
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011
On 02/24/2011 08:44 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 23.2.2011 20:49, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
btrfs does the former without anywhere near as much of the latter.
BTRFS so far only makes my kernel panicking as it did anytime I have
been trying it since Fedora 9 (yes, I am crazy). This is absolutely
On 02/15/2011 05:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 02/15/2011 04:51 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
There is no real best-practice tuning without workload details;
without that, defaults is best practice. :)
(except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
cache, defaults +
On 02/15/2011 09:05 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
(except for ext3, where, for data integrity with a volatile writeback
cache, defaults + barriers=1, since that safe default was never accepted
upstream)
Why isn't it the Fedora default?
Excellent question - we probably should flip it over in fedora
On 02/13/2011 01:29 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
snip
Good to hear that it worked!
Note that the barrier code makes your data safer, so you should run with it
on
by default (unless you really don't care about the file system).
If ext3 was running fine without barriers for all these
On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
speed, to my surprise I heard a really strange noises.
It's very strange because the drive is new
9 Power_On_Hours 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age
On 02/12/2011 05:31 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
W dniu 12 lutego 2011 23:19 użytkownik Ric Wheeler
rwhee...@redhat.com napisał:
On 02/12/2011 05:12 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi,
I added a disc to my box. I wanted to use ext4. I run fs_mark to test
speed, to my surprise I heard
On 12/26/2010 02:08 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 12/26/2010 01:53 PM, nodata wrote:
On 26/12/10 18:42, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Ray Strodehalfl...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:32 AM, drago01drag...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't want to use LVM (and
On 11/17/2010 02:02 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 13:12 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
Quick question. I always had NFS starting on startup on a particular
rawhide box. Today it didn't, and I notice that /etc/rc2|3.d/S390nfs was
missing aswell. Did something remove these links and
On 11/12/2010 11:46 AM, Chris Lumens wrote:
* btrfs (Is this ready to be default? :) If so, would that warrant a
change in our lvm by default setup?
I don't think we are quite ready for this yet. I do have btrfs
strategy on my todo list, though. I'm hoping we can start talking at
FUDCon
On 10/26/2010 09:44 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:28:55AM +0200, nodata wrote:
What I am concerned about is that the volume is mounted for _every_ user
on the system to see.
Only if the permissions are set that way. chmod 0750 /whatever and it
won't be.
I think
On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be
On 08/04/2010 01:58 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:
Hi,
I have been working for a few years (with Fabio Checconi) on a disk
scheduler providing definitely lower latencies than cfq, as well as a
higher throughput with most of the test workloads we used (or the same
throughput as cfq with the other
On 03/19/2010 08:08 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 04:21:47PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Alexander Boström wrote:
ons 2010-03-10 klockan 15:57 -0600 skrev Eric Sandeen:
There has been a lot of work upstream on 4k sector support, and in general
yes, we are ready.
Problems can
On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly
report
the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storage
providers and have also raised
On 03/19/2010 10:04 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 09:56:10AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
We are currently working to verify that storage devices work properly
report
the information that they want us to use (doing this with several storage
providers and have also raised
On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed:
Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
for this or getting ready, or already using it?
On 03/10/2010 05:38 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/10/2010 05:28 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2010/03/10 17:09 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
The change is for the benefit of manufacturers, not users. Readiness is
only
spotty. The discussion has
On 03/10/2010 08:33 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2010/03/10 20:19 (GMT-0500) Ric Wheeler composed:
Peter Jones wrote:
Note also that the access time will be slightly faster.
As if an average normal person could tell.
And power consumption will go down as you
On 02/14/2010 11:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
Any truth here?
http://www.osnews.com/story/22872/Linux_Not_Fully_Prepared_for_4096-
Byte_Sector_Hard_Drives
We have actually been working hard to take advantage of the information that
these drives export so hopefully this will all work in f13 to
86 matches
Mail list logo
