On 10/12/2023 23:38, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Max Nikulin [2023-12-10 21:49:46] wrote:
udisksctl dump
udevadm info --query=all --name=sda
for various hints related to udisks. Perhaps a better variant of udevadm
options exists.
Thanks. Now I have some thread on which to pull 🙂
I have
to...@tuxteam.de [2023-12-10 17:47:41] wrote:
> You ssh in as root (or serial port)?
I do over the serial port, but over SSH, I always login as myself first
and then `su -` to root.
> Perhaps it's a "user session" thingy playing games on you?
Could be,
Stefan
On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 11:42:42AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> Stanislav Vlasov [2023-12-10 21:16:54] wrote:
> > In /media/ disks mounts by GUI. Stefan use root in gui login.
>
> Except:
> - I never do a "GUI login" as root.
> - "This is on a headless ARM board running Debian stable".
> I acc
Stanislav Vlasov [2023-12-10 21:16:54] wrote:
> In /media/ disks mounts by GUI. Stefan use root in gui login.
Except:
- I never do a "GUI login" as root.
- "This is on a headless ARM board running Debian stable".
I access it via SSH (and occasionally serial port).
Stefan
Max Nikulin [2023-12-10 21:49:46] wrote:
> On 10/12/2023 02:49, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> "magically" mounted as
>> `/media/root/`.
> [...]
>> Any idea who/what does that, and how/where I can control it?
>
> This path is used by udisks, however I am unsure what may cause
> automounting for root.
>
>
2023-12-10 19:49 GMT+05:00, Max Nikulin :
> On 10/12/2023 02:49, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> "magically" mounted as
>> `/media/root/`.
> [...]
>> Any idea who/what does that, and how/where I can control it?
>
> This path is used by udisks, however I am unsure what may cause
> automounting for root.
>
On 10/12/2023 02:49, Stefan Monnier wrote:
"magically" mounted as
`/media/root/`.
[...]
Any idea who/what does that, and how/where I can control it?
This path is used by udisks, however I am unsure what may cause
automounting for root.
I would check
udisksctl dump
udevadm info --q
On Sat, Dec 9, 2023, 1:50 PM Stefan Monnier
wrote:
> Recently I noticed some unused ext4 filesystems (i.e. filesystems that
> aren't in /etc/fstab, that I normally don't mount, typically because
> they're snapshots or backups) "magically" mounted as
> `/media/root/`.
>
> This is on a headless ARM
In <4dc286bf.3060...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>On 5/4/2011 6:44 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> In<4dc1e009.30...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2011 4:02 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
They are also essential for any journaled filesystem to have co
In <4dc27008.2080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>On 5/2/2011 5:54 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I'm slightly surprised by the results. It's possible it was slightly
>> weighted toward JFS because of the "%CPU" and "Ops/%CPU" metrics, which I
>> don't think matter too much.
>
>
On 5/4/2011 6:44 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In<4dc1e009.30...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 5/2/2011 4:02 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
They are also essential for any journaled filesystem to have correct
behavior in the face of sudden pwoer loss.
This is true only if
On 5/2/2011 5:54 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
I'm slightly surprised by the results. It's possible it was slightly weighted
toward JFS because of the "%CPU" and "Ops/%CPU" metrics, which I don't think
matter too much.
As I mentioned previously, the only relevant graph of each set is the
In <4dc1e009.30...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>On 5/2/2011 4:02 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> They are also essential for any journaled filesystem to have correct
>> behavior in the face of sudden pwoer loss.
>
>This is true only if you don't have BBWC.
No. It is true even wi
On 5/2/2011 4:02 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
They are also essential for any journaled filesystem to have correct behavior
in the face of sudden pwoer loss.
This is true only if you don't have BBWC.
Barriers ensure, (e.g.) that the journal
entry creating a file is flushed to the backin
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
wrote:
I'd love to see data for 2.6.32 (Squeeze) and 2.6.38 (Wheezy/Sid).
I have Squeeze running XFS ontop of LVM2, if I can do something to
contribute to this, let me know
--
> A: Yes. > >Q: Are you sure? > >>A: Because it reverses
In <201105021649.01038@iguanasuicide.net>, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>I've used OpenSTV, and treated each graph as a preferential vote.
>
>This is only one way to aggregate the data on the graphs, and it is
>certainly flawed, but it can be reasonably be used for ranking the file
>systems.
In <201105021602.50060@iguanasuicide.net>, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>They are also essential for any journaled filesystem to have correct
>behavior in the face of sudden pwoer loss. Barriers ensure, (e.g.) that
>the journal entry creating a file is flushed to the backing store before
>t
In <201105011040.19169@iguanasuicide.net>, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>In <4dbd0d23.1080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/raid/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5/2.6.35-rc5_L
>>a rge_file_creates_num_threads=1.html
>>http://btrfs.boxacle.net/repository/rai
In <4dbe75dd.80...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>On 5/1/2011 10:40 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> In<4dbd0d23.1080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> Independent Linux filesystem tests performed by an IBM engineer to track
>>> BTRFS performance during development. XF
On 5/1/2011 12:10 PM, prad wrote:
neither is this an argumentum ad antiquitatem. again all that is being
shown is that xfs has a long history of use again with a reputable
organization. again, it is merely supporting evidence and it is not
being argued that because the organization has used this
On 5/1/2011 10:40 AM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
In<4dbd0d23.1080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Independent Linux filesystem tests performed by an IBM engineer to track
BTRFS performance during development. XFS trounces the others in most
tests:
These results are interesting
On 5/1/2011 7:57 AM, Chen Wei wrote:
2) performs well on a lots of small files, maildir and extrace linux
kernel source for example.
This was XFS Achilles heal until the introduction of Dave Chinner's
delayed logging patch in 2.6.35. Prior to this XFS was absolutely
horrible with metadata i
On 5/1/2011 3:35 AM, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Du, 01 mai 11, 02:34:59, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip various super-stuff running xfs]
I understand that xfs is great for super-computers[1] and stuff, but how
is that relevant to a desktop computer with something like this?
The background info I pr
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI writes:
> On 05/01/2011 04:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> That 'opinion' is based, in part, on the following facts, many of
>> which are in my previous posts to this list. If you would like, to
>> avoid expressing 'opinion' in the future, I could simply paste the
>> followin
In <4dbd0d23.1080...@hardwarefreak.com>, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>Independent Linux filesystem tests performed by an IBM engineer to track
>BTRFS performance during development. XFS trounces the others in most
>tests:
These results are interesting and useful, but I think "trounces" is a poor
descri
On Sun, May 01, 2011 at 11:35:17AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Du, 01 mai 11, 02:34:59, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I understand that xfs is great for super-computers[1] and stuff, but how
> is that relevant to a desktop computer with something like this?
>
> $ df -h
> FilesystemSize
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
Both wrong. Wrong context. Please read them again carefully.
> Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Â Monogamy is the same.
A
On 05/01/2011 04:34 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> That 'opinion' is based, in part, on the following facts, many of
> which are in my previous posts to this list. If you would like, to
> avoid expressing 'opinion' in the future, I could simply paste the
> following huge ass text into every email deal
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 03:41:05PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >> prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
> >> Why USB?
> > since our volume is pretty small we only require around 10G.
> > the idea is to keep bkps on usb drives, so that if one fails, it's just
> > a simple plug-in to get things goi
On Du, 01 mai 11, 02:34:59, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip various super-stuff running xfs]
I understand that xfs is great for super-computers[1] and stuff, but how
is that relevant to a desktop computer with something like this?
$ df -h
FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/s
On 4/30/2011 11:48 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
i'm interested in not seeing unsubstantiated opinion on a technical
mailing list.
That 'opinion' is based, in part, on the following facts, many of which
are in my previous posts to this list. If you would like, to avoid
expressing 'opinion' in the
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 4/26/2011 5:58 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
>>
>> you know, i don't mind religious debates - vi vs emacs, mac vs
>> windows, iphone vs android, fibre vs iscsi, trustedbsd vs selinux,
>> and... xfs vs ext. however, i like an educated debate whe
On 4/29/2011 1:51 PM, prad wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
On 04/29/2011 01:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/26/2011 5:40 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
But not being able to fsck the fs that I just created is unacceptable.
Again, 'xfs_repair -n' is functionally equivalent to 'xfs_check'. They
are two
On 4/26/2011 8:19 PM, PMA wrote:
But just in point of fact if possible: What *is* XFS's position
re FSCK -- just that it is excluded from the boot process,
or that it can never be run? And for whichever, does XFS
documentation offer a reason?
I suggest executing 'man fsck'. Here's a relevant s
On 4/26/2011 5:58 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
you know, i don't mind religious debates - vi vs emacs, mac vs
windows, iphone vs android, fibre vs iscsi, trustedbsd vs selinux,
and... xfs vs ext. however, i like an educated debate where both sides
can site specifics and hard facts and not just say 'th
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM, prad wrote:
Chris Brennan writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > No worries, couldn't hurt to read up on CDDL[1], *BSD[2] Licences and
> > GNU/GPL [3]. As for your general Filesystem needs, XFS or XFS-LVM is
> > probably the smart way to go.
> >
> > You mentioned something abo
Chris Brennan writes:
[snip]
> No worries, couldn't hurt to read up on CDDL[1], *BSD[2] Licences and
> GNU/GPL [3]. As for your general Filesystem needs, XFS or XFS-LVM is
> probably the smart way to go.Â
>
> You mentioned something about doing this on USB (solid-state?)
> storage? You might wan
Ron Johnson writes:
> On 04/29/2011 01:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 4/26/2011 5:40 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>>> But not being able to fsck the fs that I just created is unacceptable.
>>
>> Again, 'xfs_repair -n' is functionally equivalent to 'xfs_check'. They
>> are two methods (paths) that
On 04/29/2011 01:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/26/2011 5:40 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
But not being able to fsck the fs that I just created is unacceptable.
Again, 'xfs_repair -n' is functionally equivalent to 'xfs_check'. They
are two methods (paths) that (should) arrive at the same result.
On 4/26/2011 5:40 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
But not being able to fsck the fs that I just created is unacceptable.
Again, 'xfs_repair -n' is functionally equivalent to 'xfs_check'. They
are two methods (paths) that (should) arrive at the same result. Either
will let you know if the filesystem
But just in point of fact if possible: What *is* XFS's position
re FSCK -- just that it is excluded from the boot process,
or that it can never be run? And for whichever, does XFS
documentation offer a reason?
(I'm not insensitive to this thread's mounting frustration;
merely deranged enough to
On 27 April 2011 10:11, PMA wrote:
> I'm missing a detail here. Was the assertion re FSCK
> specifically that XFS doesn't call this exec during boot,
> or was it that under XFS, FSCK can't be called at all?
> (And -- for whichever -- why so?)
No, it's because somebody asked advice concerning w
On 04/26/2011 07:11 PM, PMA wrote:
I'm missing a detail here. Was the assertion re FSCK
specifically that XFS doesn't call this exec during boot,
or was it that under XFS, FSCK can't be called at all?
(And -- for whichever -- why so?)
My whole and only complaint is that xfs_check fails on 32 b
I'm missing a detail here. Was the assertion re FSCK
specifically that XFS doesn't call this exec during boot,
or was it that under XFS, FSCK can't be called at all?
(And -- for whichever -- why so?)
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/26/2011 04:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26
you know, i don't mind religious debates - vi vs emacs, mac vs
windows, iphone vs android, fibre vs iscsi, trustedbsd vs selinux,
and... xfs vs ext. however, i like an educated debate where both sides
can site specifics and hard facts and not just say 'this is better
because i say so' (yeah, stan,
On 04/26/2011 04:44 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26/2011 9:29 AM:
On 04/26/2011 02:41 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'm CC'ing back to debian-user as I believe others may find this
information useful.
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 11:15 PM:
Stan: "Thus moving to EXT4 g
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/26/2011 9:29 AM:
> On 04/26/2011 02:41 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> I'm CC'ing back to debian-user as I believe others may find this
>> information useful.
>>
>> Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 11:15 PM:
>>
>>> Stan: "Thus moving to EXT4 gains you nothing on a 32 bit ma
On 04/26/2011 02:41 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I'm CC'ing back to debian-user as I believe others may find this
information useful.
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 11:15 PM:
Stan: "Thus moving to EXT4 gains you nothing on a 32 bit machine,"
Ron: It gives me the ability to do a fsck!
Only o
I'm CC'ing back to debian-user as I believe others may find this
information useful.
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 11:15 PM:
> Stan: "Thus moving to EXT4 gains you nothing on a 32 bit machine,"
>
> Ron: It gives me the ability to do a fsck!
Only on rare occasions should one _need_ to run x
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 4:54 PM:
> On 04/25/2011 02:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 1:25 AM:
>>> On 04/19/2011 05:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> [snip]
XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category,
>>>
>>> Including not being able to xfs
On 04/25/2011 05:58 PM, Chris Brennan wrote:
[snip]
Total amount of ram, top of top would be handy too
8GB RAM + 16GB swap, but not terribly relevant since the address space
of 32-bit apps is only 3GB.
--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty an
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/25/2011 02:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 1:25 AM:
>>
>>> On 04/19/2011 05:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category,
>>>
>>> Including
On 04/25/2011 02:33 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 1:25 AM:
On 04/19/2011 05:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category,
Including not being able to xfs_check very large filesystems on 32 bit
machines. (Which if why I'm
On 04/21/2011 12:14 PM, prad wrote:
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
>
>> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives which is a
>> total departure from what we've done over the years. so might as well
>> throw in a new fs too. :D
>
> Why U
Jörg-Volker Peetz put forth on 4/25/2011 4:06 AM:
> Also barriers should be enabled for data safety. Barriers are enabled for ext4
> by default.
XFS uses barriers by default as well. However, the use of barriers is
wholly dependent on the storage back end. WRT to systems with BBWC,
either on an
Ron Johnson put forth on 4/25/2011 1:25 AM:
> On 04/19/2011 05:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category,
>
> Including not being able to xfs_check very large filesystems on 32 bit
> machines. (Which if why I'm going back to ext4.)
This is an o
This discussion
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?36507-Large-HDD-SSD-Linux-2.6.38-File-System-Comparison/page6
treats also how to weigh safety against performance and the developer of ext4
("tytso") participated in the forum.
--
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to de
Dne, 25. 04. 2011 11:06:45 je Jörg-Volker Peetz napisal(a):
Also barriers should be enabled for data safety. Barriers are enabled
for ext4
by default.
By the way, detailed mount options should always be considered when
comparing
file systems.
See this discussion: Large HDD/SSD Linux 2.6.38 F
Also barriers should be enabled for data safety. Barriers are enabled for ext4
by default.
By the way, detailed mount options should always be considered when comparing
file systems.
See this discussion: Large HDD/SSD Linux 2.6.38 File-System Comparison
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?365
On 04/19/2011 05:42 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[snip]
XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category,
Including not being able to xfs_check very large filesystems on 32 bit
machines. (Which if why I'm going back to ext4.)
--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secur
On Sb, 23 apr 11, 11:21:21, Brian Flaherty wrote:
>
> I assume this "read many, write few" idea applies to all SSD drives.
> There seems to be differing recommendations about the extent to
> worry about configuring SSD drives and I'm wondering what people
> here think and do.
>
> Some links I've
On Jo, 21 apr 11, 22:10:10, Chris Brennan wrote:
You mentioned something about doing this on USB (solid-state?) storage? You
might want to also consider reading up on USB's general policy about write
few, read many.
I assume this "read many, write few" idea applies to all SSD drives.
There se
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Andrei Popescu
wrote:
> On Jo, 21 apr 11, 22:10:10, Chris Brennan wrote:
>>
>> You mentioned something about doing this on USB (solid-state?) storage? You
>> might want to also consider reading up on USB's general policy about write
>> few, read many. In a nutshell
On Jo, 21 apr 11, 22:10:10, Chris Brennan wrote:
>
> You mentioned something about doing this on USB (solid-state?) storage? You
> might want to also consider reading up on USB's general policy about write
> few, read many. In a nutshell, most USB devices don't like to be written to
> many many ti
Arnt Karlsen put forth on 4/22/2011 8:18 AM:
> ..I've had about half a dozen crashes on ext3 where the journal
> was written to disk but not the data, so the journal trashed my
> old data "that were gone" according to the journal, on the next
> fsck.
This is a result of using data=writeback jo
hmm. nevermind.
Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/22/2011 08:12 AM, PMA wrote:
Wonder if Reiser's FS inspired his decision where to stash his wife.
In a tree?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debi
On 04/22/2011 08:12 AM, PMA wrote:
Wonder if Reiser's FS inspired his decision where to stash his wife.
In a tree?
--
"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure
the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally
corrupt."
Samuel Adams, essay in The Publi
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:14:32 -0700, prad wrote in message
<87bozzfmcn@towardsfreedom.com>:
> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>
> > prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
> >
> >> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives
> >> which is a total departure from what we've done over the
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:34:24 +1000, Andrew wrote in message
<4db04070.1030...@affinityvision.com.au>:
> Hi,
>
> Heddle Weaver wrote:
> > *http://tinyurl.com/3tu3ww9
>
> That's a pretty old reference, but an interesting read.
>
> Important note:
> These tests were done with a 2.4 kernel. They s
Wonder if Reiser's FS inspired his decision where to stash his wife.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db17eb1.6030...@aya.yale.edu
Miles Bader put forth on 4/21/2011 11:45 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>> XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category, at least for server
>> workloads. EXT4 may have some advantages on single user workstations
>> simply from a familiarity standpoint WRT tools, and slightly better
>> perform
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> XFS beats EXT4 hands down in nearly every category, at least for server
> workloads. EXT4 may have some advantages on single user workstations
> simply from a familiarity standpoint WRT tools, and slightly better
> performance with some single user workloads.
I had an acc
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:44 PM, prad wrote:
Chris Brennan writes:
>
> > CDDL isn't a BSD Licence, it's the licence that's used by what was Sun
> > Microsystems and is now Oracle.
> >
> sorry my mistake for thinking zfs was bsd (even after you said it was
> cddl)! i was confusing it with the fac
Chris Brennan writes:
> CDDL isn't a BSD Licence, it's the licence that's used by what was Sun
> Microsystems and is now Oracle.
>
sorry my mistake for thinking zfs was bsd (even after you said it was
cddl)! i was confusing it with the fact that you can use zfs via
freebsd). thx for the correctio
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:09 PM, prad wrote:
Chris Brennan writes:
>
>
> >> one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using
> >> debian/freebsd. i understand that zfs works well with freebsd,
> >> so presumably it would with debian/freebsd as well.
> >>
> >> i'm curious as to feelings on thi
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> I'd steer clear of USB disk storage for a server environment. I've seen
> too many reports of USB links resetting spuriously for no apparent
> reason. If you have your root filesystem and swap on such a device and
> this happens, you're in trouble.
>
ok thx stan. i hadn
Chris Brennan writes:
>> one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using
>> debian/freebsd. i understand that zfs works well with freebsd,
>> so presumably it would with debian/freebsd as well.
>>
>> i'm curious as to feelings on this combo vs xfs with straight debian
>> (which is really wha
On 04/21/2011 04:52 PM, Heddle Weaver wrote:
Another one that should have gone to the list.
On 22 April 2011 07:52, Heddle Weaver wrote:
On 22 April 2011 05:27, prad wrote:
prad writes:
are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
one possibility i forgot to ask about
Another one that should have gone to the list.
On 22 April 2011 07:52, Heddle Weaver wrote:
>
>
> On 22 April 2011 05:27, prad wrote:
>
>> prad writes:
>>
>> > are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
>> >
>> one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freeb
On Apr 21, 2011 4:41 PM, "Stan Hoeppner" wrote:
>
> prad put forth on 4/21/2011 2:14 PM:
> > Stan Hoeppner writes:
> >
> >> prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
> >>
> >>> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives which is
a
> >>> total departure from what we've done over the
prad put forth on 4/21/2011 2:14 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner writes:
>
>> prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
>>
>>> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives which is a
>>> total departure from what we've done over the years. so might as well
>>> throw in a new fs too. :D
>>
>> Why
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:21 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2011 3:28 PM, "prad" wrote:
> >
> > prad writes:
> >
> > > are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
> > >
> > one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
> > i understand that zfs wor
Oops, scratch that. Didn't see the remaining emails.
On Apr 21, 2011 4:21 PM, "shawn wilson" wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2011 3:28 PM, "prad" wrote:
> >
> > prad writes:
> >
> > > are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
> > >
> > one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs u
On Apr 21, 2011 3:28 PM, "prad" wrote:
>
> prad writes:
>
> > are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
> >
> one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
> i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, so presumably it would
> with debian/freebsd as we
Miles Fidelman put forth on 4/21/2011 8:03 AM:
> Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>> Isn't ReiserFS effectively dead with the inventor being found guilty
>> of murdering his wife?
>
> Right. Forgot about that. Ahh the problems of projects that are too
> closely tied to a key individual. (Sort of makes m
On 21/04/11 03:51 PM, Erwan David wrote:
Le Thu 21/04/2011, George Standish disait
On 21/04/11 03:27 PM, prad wrote:
one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, so presumably it would
with debian/freebsd as well.
ZFS only
Le Thu 21/04/2011, George Standish disait
> On 21/04/11 03:27 PM, prad wrote:
>
> >one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
> >i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, so presumably it would
> >with debian/freebsd as well.
>
> ZFS only has user space support on gnu
On 21/04/11 03:27 PM, prad wrote:
one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, so presumably it would
with debian/freebsd as well.
ZFS only has user space support on gnu/linux, thus it's not "ideal".
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
prad writes:
> are there any feelings or recommendations regarding the above?
>
one possibility i forgot to ask about is zfs using debian/freebsd.
i understand that zfs works well with freebsd, so presumably it would
with debian/freebsd as well.
i'm curious as to feelings on this combo vs xfs wi
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
>
>> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives which is a
>> total departure from what we've done over the years. so might as well
>> throw in a new fs too. :D
>
> Why USB?
>
since our volume is pretty small we only
shawn wilson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Isn't ReiserFS effectively dead with the inventor being found guilty of
murdering his wife?
Right. Forgot about that. Ahh the problems of projects that are too
closely tied
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> Andrew McGlashan wrote:
>>
>> Isn't ReiserFS effectively dead with the inventor being found guilty of
>> murdering his wife?
>
> Right. Â Forgot about that. Â Ahh the problems of projects that are too
> closely tied to a key individual. Â (Sort
Andrew McGlashan wrote:
Isn't ReiserFS effectively dead with the inventor being found guilty
of murdering his wife?
Right. Forgot about that. Ahh the problems of projects that are too
closely tied to a key individual. (Sort of makes me worry about Postfix
periodically. Sigh...)
--
In t
Hi,
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Seems like most people have recommended ext4, and a few XFS.
What about ReiserFS?
Isn't ReiserFS effectively dead with the inventor being found guilty of
murdering his wife?
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/07/reiserfs-fading-into-obscurity-as-maker-leads-c
On Apr 21, 2011 7:47 AM, "Miles Fidelman"
wrote:
>
> Seems like most people have recommended ext4, and a few XFS.
>
> What about ReiserFS?
>
He's in jail for killing his wife. :)
So, they did have a dod contract for putting some strong encryption into
raiser4 and they were going to do some other
Seems like most people have recommended ext4, and a few XFS.
What about ReiserFS?
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
prad put forth on 4/20/2011 11:43 PM:
> we want to run our servers through virtual box off usb drives which is a
> total departure from what we've done over the years. so might as well
> throw in a new fs too. :D
Why USB?
--
Stan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.o
Stan Hoeppner writes:
> you left out the best, most mature, highest performance Linux
> filesystem of them all: XFS
>
that i did stan! i'd completely forgotten about it ever since i heard it
was good only for big files many years ago (i never really investigated
it either back then).
we don't h
Heddle Weaver put forth on 4/19/2011 6:58 PM:
> XFS is excellent for large file sizes - graphics, music, videos, etc, but
> ext3/4 are better for a range of file sizes and therefore better for a
This is simply not true. Modern XFS is just as performant with small
files as EXT3/4, especially with
Chris Brennan put forth on 4/19/2011 3:30 PM:
> JFX/XFS comes with there own risks (especially in power-loss
> situations).
This information is incorrect, at least WRT XFS, please disregard.
XFS had a bug prior to 2007 that could, in rare cases, cause some
filesystem corruption upon power loss.
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
