"Vladimir V. Saveliev" wrote:
>
> ... you are hitting a problem known as "not perfect handling of race conditions
> occuring during writing pages to a sparse file".
>
> There are two fixes for this problem:
> first is "expanding truncate" (although I am not sure which kernel it is for)
> second
reiserfsck segfaults when i do a reiserfsck --rebuild-tree
running 3.x.0j on 3.6.25 on 2.4.5 (and possibly also 2.4.6)
I have logs (very boring) and ltrace (very big) of reiserfsck --rebuild-tree
Any help (including a "send the ltrace to me") would be greatly appreciated
Justin
for passive ftp have a look at.. (the end of the page.. this is nicelly
documented :) )
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jns/security/iptables/iptables_conntrack.html
H.
- Original Message -
From: "Wendel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nikita Danilov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Se
Hi Nikita,
First, thkz for help me ... =]
What is a FTP PASSIVE ?? What is the difference between my standar FTP ?
I get the package and install with sucessfull! :)
But... it doesn't generate packages with chattr :/
It did generated packages as:
[root@lnx /sbin]# ls *reiser*
debugreiser
On Aug 29, 2001 21:51 +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> How about sending Linus and lkm an email insisting that Xenix should get its
> attempt to mount last.
I _thought_ that a patch had gone into v7 which made it check some "sanity"
of the superblock before trying to mount it (e.g. blocksize/total bl
I get these errors since weeks when posting, usually this is caused by a
broken windows mta which replies to the wrong address (me instead of the
mailing-list manager). since postfix does not do that, is this particular
postfix installation just plain broken or is the reiserfs mailinglist
doing fu
"pcg( Marc)"@goof(A.).(Lehmann )com wrote:
>
> I wondered why my raid systems became so slow recently and found the
> reason: when a reiserfs filesystems gets 90% full it starts to become
> VERY slow on writes. My filesystems usually do in excess of 20MB/s when
> writing, but this degrades to abo
I wondered why my raid systems became so slow recently and found the
reason: when a reiserfs filesystems gets 90% full it starts to become
VERY slow on writes. My filesystems usually do in excess of 20MB/s when
writing, but this degrades to about 10mb/s at 95% and goes down to 1mb/s
at 98%. When d
Hans Reiser writes:
> "Vladimir V. Saveliev" wrote:
> >
[...]
>
> How about sending Linus and lkm an email insisting that Xenix should get its
> attempt to mount last.
Order in which mount_root() tries to mount file-systems depends on order
of register_filesystem() during initialization,
Hi Daniel,
I do not believe this would be related. The problem I saw was ESTALE
being returned to programs using NFS V2 to access reiserfs filesystems,
after a server reboot. While rebooting the servers, the clients do
print the same syslog messages that you see because the server isn't
respondi
"Vladimir V. Saveliev" wrote:
>
> Hauser Marcel wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I've recompiled the Kernel WITHOUT the System V/Xenix ... Filesystem ! Now
> > everything works fine !
> > Is it a bug in the 2.4.9 Kernel or ReiserFS ?
> >
>
> v7 seems to have no way to distinguish itself. So it mounts an
Hauser Marcel wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've recompiled the Kernel WITHOUT the System V/Xenix ... Filesystem ! Now
> everything works fine !
> Is it a bug in the 2.4.9 Kernel or ReiserFS ?
>
v7 seems to have no way to distinguish itself. So it mounts any device where
first 512 block is readable.
So, imho,
"Hauser Marcel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> hope this is not in any faq I haven't read !!. :)
>
> Question/Problem:
>
> I've currently changed my root partition to reiserfs. At the first boot i
> get the following error message:
> cramfs: wrong magic
> FAT: bogus logic
Hi
I've recompiled the Kernel WITHOUT the System V/Xenix ... Filesystem ! Now
everything works fine !
Is it a bug in the 2.4.9 Kernel or ReiserFS ?
Cheers Marcel
-Original Message-
From: vs [mailto:vs]On Behalf Of Vladimir V. Saveliev
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:52
To: Hauser Ma
Anne Milicia wrote:
> Hi Neil and ReiserFS Team,
> I'm having problems with stale file handles on failover testing using
> 2.4.6 servers with ReiserFS and 2.2.19 clients mounting with NFS V2. I
> do not get stale file handles mounting with NFS V3. The problem seems
> to be because the NFS V2
Hi
"W. Wilson Ho" wrote:
>
> I now believe it is a reiserfs/kernel bug. I've managed to
> reproduce the bug in the following cases:
>
Ok, it appeared to be a known issue. When getting a problem do you have in your logs
something like:
"vs-: reiserfs_get_block: XXX YYY ZZZ UNKNOWN shoul
only info !
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=69
nice time at all !
Hi Vladimir
No it was never formated as that filesystem (it was Ext2 before). About the
question if i've compiled "System V/Xenix/V7/Coherent file system support"
into the kernel i can't tell right now because i'am currently not at
home and i can't remember myself! :)
Thanks for the Help
Hi
Yes it is! (including defaults,notail)
May some more details how my box is setup:
Partition: MountPoint: FileSystem
/hda1 / ext2
/hdb1 / reiserfs
Both Partitions have a /boot directory
Both Partitions are using Kernel 2.4.9
LILO is
Hi
Hauser Marcel wrote:
> Hi All
>
> hope this is not in any faq I haven't read !!. :)
>
> Question/Problem:
>
> I've currently changed my root partition to reiserfs. At the first boot i
> get the following error message:
> cramfs: wrong magic
> FAT: bogus logical sector size 0
> UMSDOS: msdos_r
"W. Wilson Ho" wrote:
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
> >
> > > Lastly, if a (single) user process creates files f1, f2, f3, ...
> > > in that order, does the file system guarantee the order of
> > > creation? That is, is it possible that after a journal playback,
> > > that f2 is gone but f1 and
Is your fstab correctly set?
You need to setup reiserfs for /.
> Hi All
>
> hope this is not in any faq I haven't read !!. :)
>
> Question/Problem:
>
> I've currently changed my root partition to reiserfs. At the first boot i
> get the following error message:
> cramfs: wrong magic
> FAT: bog
22 matches
Mail list logo
