Mario Holbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand the point that the device's blocksize affects the device's
> length... obviously a block device can only consist of full blocks,
> not half a block or something like that.
> However, if that's right, a block device's length should IMHO also be
Mario Holbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand the point that the device's blocksize affects the device's
length... obviously a block device can only consist of full blocks,
not half a block or something like that.
However, if that's right, a block device's length should IMHO also be
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:55:34PM +0100, I wrote:
> multiples of the block size. The 2.6 kernel does not have this problem; it
> appears to accept partial blocks, and doesn't even appear to calculate the
> device size (blockdev --getsz and --getsize return 0 on my machine.)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:20:06PM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Sytse Wielinga wrote:
> > Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
>
> because it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > [EMAIL
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:07:27AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Not trying to spread FUD, I am just explaining I had the same issue and
> that was the resolution.
Well, *if* the reason of your issue was the same as the reason of
my issue (what could be, but must not be), you were in the
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
> VIA chipset?
The problem is with each drive on each controller. The problem is even
with no drive on no controller - as I've shown to you with my loop
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Sytse Wielinga wrote:
> Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
because it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# dd if=/dev/hdg7 of=/dev/null bs=512
> attempt to access
: Re: 2.4: "access beyond end of device" after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
> VIA chipset?
Oh, please - no FUD. There is no problem, and we understand in det
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
> VIA chipset?
Oh, please - no FUD. There is no problem, and we understand in detail
what happens and why it happens. There is no need for any
to see if you have
the 32GB clip enabled? If so, you need to disable this.
Justin.
-Original Message-
From: Mario Holbe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:15 AM
To: Piszcz, Justin Michael
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4: "access beyon
Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
Sytse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:05:05AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Okay but what hard drive model and IDE Chipset/Controller are you using?
VIA vt82c686b onboard
PDC20269 (Promise U133TX2) on PCI
hda: WDC WD400EB-00CPF0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: IC35L080AVVA07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdd: HL-DT-ST
: Re: 2.4: "access beyond end of device" after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Normally, this problem associated with drives over 32GB or 127GB on a
> controller that cannot support it. It was not discussed here, I
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
> Normally, this problem associated with drives over 32GB or 127GB on a
> controller that cannot support it. It was not discussed here, I was
> wondering if that is the problem, if it is not, what type of Hard Drive
> is
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:20 AM
To: Andries Brouwer
Cc: Mario Holbe; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4: "access beyond end of device" after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:37:08PM +0100, Andries Bro
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:37:08PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > > I suppose that what happens is the following:
> > > mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
> > > After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> > If you want to restore the device to full size, use
> > blockdev --setbsz 512.
>
> Does that in any way hurt, if a filesystem is just mounted?
It is a bad idea to change the blocksize of a mounted filesystem.
-
To unsubscribe from
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I suppose that what happens is the following:
> > mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
> > After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means reading
> > the next 8 sectors and that fails because only 6 sectors are
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> So this is either not a Linux error and not a disk error, its just that the
> "use with filesystem" then "direct access" is a unfortunate combination.
> What would be the correct fix for this for this, if any?
Well, I personally
Hi Andries,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
>
> > > mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
> > > block
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> I suppose that what happens is the following:
> mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
> After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means reading
> the next 8 sectors and that fails because only 6 sectors are left.
> Test
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> > mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
> > block device's EOF behaviour: before the mount the device returned
> > EOF, after the mount it
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> > Could somebody please explain this to me? Is this intentional?
> No
Thanks :)
> Can you please turn readahead off (hdparm -a 0 /dev/hdg) and repeat the tests?
> The
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
Could somebody please explain this to me? Is this intentional?
No
Thanks :)
Can you please turn readahead off (hdparm -a 0 /dev/hdg) and repeat the tests?
The
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
block device's EOF behaviour: before the mount the device returned
EOF, after the mount it doesn't
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
I suppose that what happens is the following:
mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means reading
the next 8 sectors and that fails because only 6 sectors are left.
Test that
Hi Andries,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 11:55:47AM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 05:46:35PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
block device's EOF
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
So this is either not a Linux error and not a disk error, its just that the
use with filesystem then direct access is a unfortunate combination.
What would be the correct fix for this for this, if any?
Well, I personally think
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I suppose that what happens is the following:
mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means reading
the next 8 sectors and that fails because only 6 sectors are left.
So
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 12:47:01PM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
If you want to restore the device to full size, use
blockdev --setbsz 512.
Does that in any way hurt, if a filesystem is just mounted?
It is a bad idea to change the blocksize of a mounted filesystem.
-
To unsubscribe from this
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:37:08PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:45:26AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
I suppose that what happens is the following:
mounting sets the blocksize to 4096.
After reading 9992360 sectors, reading the next block means reading
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcelo Tosatti
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:20 AM
To: Andries Brouwer
Cc: Mario Holbe; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4: access beyond end of device after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 01:37:08PM +0100, Andries Brouwer wrote
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Normally, this problem associated with drives over 32GB or 127GB on a
controller that cannot support it. It was not discussed here, I was
wondering if that is the problem, if it is not, what type of Hard Drive
is giving
: Re: 2.4: access beyond end of device after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 08:42:08AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Normally, this problem associated with drives over 32GB or 127GB on a
controller that cannot support it. It was not discussed here, I was
wondering
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:05:05AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Okay but what hard drive model and IDE Chipset/Controller are you using?
VIA vt82c686b onboard
PDC20269 (Promise U133TX2) on PCI
hda: WDC WD400EB-00CPF0, ATA DISK drive
hdc: IC35L080AVVA07-0, ATA DISK drive
hdd: HL-DT-ST
Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
Sytse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
to see if you have
the 32GB clip enabled? If so, you need to disable this.
Justin.
-Original Message-
From: Mario Holbe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:15 AM
To: Piszcz, Justin Michael
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4: access beyond end of device
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
VIA chipset?
Oh, please - no FUD. There is no problem, and we understand in detail
what happens and why it happens. There is no need for any
: Re: 2.4: access beyond end of device after ext2 mount
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
VIA chipset?
Oh, please - no FUD. There is no problem, and we understand in detail
what happens
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Sytse Wielinga wrote:
Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
because it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# dd if=/dev/hdg7 of=/dev/null bs=512
attempt to access beyond
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:03AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Is the problem with the drive on the promise board or the drive on the
VIA chipset?
The problem is with each drive on each controller. The problem is even
with no drive on no controller - as I've shown to you with my loop
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 10:07:27AM -0500, Piszcz, Justin Michael wrote:
Not trying to spread FUD, I am just explaining I had the same issue and
that was the resolution.
Well, *if* the reason of your issue was the same as the reason of
my issue (what could be, but must not be), you were in the
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:20:06PM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:17:07PM +0100, Sytse Wielinga wrote:
Why not just use dd if=/dev/xxx `blockdev --getbsz /dev/xxx` ...?
because it doesn't work, as I've demonstrated in
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:55:34PM +0100, I wrote:
multiples of the block size. The 2.6 kernel does not have this problem; it
appears to accept partial blocks, and doesn't even appear to calculate the
device size (blockdev --getsz and --getsize return 0 on my machine.)
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
> block device's EOF behaviour: before the mount the device returned
> EOF, after the mount it doesn't anymore:
>
> [on a fresh booted system]
> [EMAIL
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 12:35:30AM +0100, Mario Holbe wrote:
Hello,
mounting an ext2 (ext3 as well) filesystem seems to modify the
block device's EOF behaviour: before the mount the device returned
EOF, after the mount it doesn't anymore:
[on a fresh booted system]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~#
46 matches
Mail list logo
