On Sun, 2001-11-25 at 12:18, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > I had rebooted multiple times trying to fix a halt problem. Everything
> > seems OK but it looks like I can't risk running reiserfsck anyway. I'm
> > probably going to have to wait until reiserfsck is improved.
>
> Which
On Sunday 25 November 2001 08:45, nate wrote:
> the first problem i encountered when trying to boot 2.4.x(i think
> it was .5 or .6) was an "illegal instruction" on every binary
> i tried to use. this was with compiling with athlon optimizations.
FWIW I've also been trying to compile 2.4.x kernels
Stig Brautaset said:
> Not trying to sound like a wise-guy here, but I don't think you
> should blame the kernel's stability for you failing to make it
> boot.
>
> Sounds more like a configuration error to me (which is ok, I
> remember the config being a bit different from 2.2.x to 2.4.x...).
i s
Adam Warner wrote:
> I had rebooted multiple times trying to fix a halt problem. Everything
> seems OK but it looks like I can't risk running reiserfsck anyway. I'm
> probably going to have to wait until reiserfsck is improved.
Which sounds to me like a superb argument against using reiserfs...
t
Craig Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> nate wrote:
>
> > problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is not near
> > stable yet, and why i won't be usin it for at least 10-11 more
> > months on anything including test systems.
>
> Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've fou
* nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thus:
> Craig Dickson said:
>
> > Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found
> > 2.4 to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime
> > with 2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in
> > turn ran for a few
On Sun, 2001-11-25 at 00:08, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
>
> I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0 kernel.
> Please, don't use it. It'll cause some corruption on your filesystem
> when unmounting filesystems.
My optimism that 2.4.15 would finally be a good release was obvio
Craig Dickson said:
> Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found
> 2.4 to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime
> with 2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in
> turn ran for a few weeks flawlessly before I decided to upgrade to
> 2
nate wrote:
> problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is not near
> stable yet, and why i won't be usin it for at least 10-11 more
> months on anything including test systems.
Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found 2.4
to be pretty decent. I had something like two mont
* nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thus:
> Jeronimo Pellegrini said:
> >
> > I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0
> > kernel. Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your
> > filesystem when unmounting filesystems.
>
> problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is
Jeronimo Pellegrini said:
>
> I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0
> kernel. Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your
> filesystem when unmounting filesystems.
problems like this is why i believe 2.4 is not near
stable yet, and why i won't be usin it for a
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 02:00:29AM +0800, csj wrote:
> Is this a time-lapsed post?
No...
> Isn't -greased-turkey supposed to be 2.4.15-final?
It was supposed to be final, but it is broken.
> Or are we looking forward to a final 2.4.15-final,
> 2.4.15-cold-turkey?
2.4.15 should have been a fin
On Saturday 24 November 2001 20:11, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Bostjan Muller wrote:
[...]
> > Could you please post the url to the tread that discusses this?
>
> Look for these strings:
> "2.4.15-pre9 breakage"
> "2.4.15 problem: deleted inodes still pre
* Veit Waltemath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [011124 12:17]:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:11:06AM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> >
> > Look for these strings:
> > "2.4.15-pre9 breakage"
> > "2.4.15 problem: deleted inodes still present in ext2"
> > "2.4.15: FS corruption on EXT2"
>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Veit Waltemath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:11:06AM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
>> "2.4.15: FS corruption on EXT2"
>
>Only on EXT2 or on all fs, i'm using EXT3.
All filesystems. The broken versions are
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 07:10:49PM +0100, Veit Waltemath wrote:
> > Look for these strings:
> > "2.4.15-pre9 breakage"
> > "2.4.15 problem: deleted inodes still present in ext2"
> > "2.4.15: FS corruption on EXT2"
>
> Only on EXT2 or on all fs, i'm using EXT3.
Not
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 10:11:06AM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Bostjan Muller wrote:
> > * On 24-11-01 at 12:09 Jeronimo Pellegrini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > +Here quoted text begins+
> > > See the linux kernel mailing list for more det
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 03:34:59AM +0530, Sridhar M.A. wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:08:21AM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
>>
>> I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0 kernel.
>> Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your filesystem
>
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 09:08:21AM -0200, Jeronimo Pellegrini wrote:
>
> I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0 kernel.
> Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your filesystem
>
Am using it. Haven't faced any problems.
--
Sridhar M.
On Sat, Nov 24, 2001 at 12:51:14PM +0100, Bostjan Muller wrote:
> * On 24-11-01 at 12:09 Jeronimo Pellegrini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> +Here quoted text begins+
> > See the linux kernel mailing list for more details.
> Could you please post the url to the tread that discusses this?
Look
* On 24-11-01 at 12:09 Jeronimo Pellegrini ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
+Here quoted text begins+
>
> I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0 kernel.
> Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your filesystem
> when unmounting filesystems.
[...]
> If you'v
I've seen some people here talking about the new 2.4.15/2.5.0 kernel.
Please, don't use it. It'll cause some forruption on your filesystem
when unmounting filesystems.
If you're running it, do this:
- Go into single-user mode (init 1)
- sync
- umount everything not busy
- remount the rest read-o
22 matches
Mail list logo
