On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:23:06AM -0300, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
[...]
> Maybe putting a tiny tinfoil hat on the power cable?
tiny tinfoil ♥
Cheers
-
t
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 26/02/2023 18:56, Albretch Mueller wrote:
I started using another power cable and so far so good, but I would
not be too happy too soon. It may sound more than half way off to you,
but it is physically possible and it has been actually demonstrated
that "they" have been hacking into computer
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 09:56:46PM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
> On 2/26/23, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> the drive has its own power cable and those kinds of failures have
> >> actually happened in research rooms in libraries [...]
> >Te problem is probably not coming from the electrical outle
On 2/26/23, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>> the drive has its own power cable and those kinds of failures have
>> actually happened in research rooms in libraries, which are rented by
>> VIPs for their own conferences ...; so, I doubt those electrical
>> outlets are also failing
>Te problem is probably
gt; [22566.583373] sd 3:0:0:0: [sdb] Attached SCSI disk
> [22575.515358] XFS (sdb1): Mounting V5 Filesystem
> [22575.742880] XFS (sdb1): Starting recovery (logdev: internal)
> [22575.919197] XFS (sdb1): Ending recovery (logdev: internal)
> [22575.932002] xfs filesystem being mounted at
> /media
On 2/25/23 04:31, Albretch Mueller wrote:
On 2/25/23, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
I can't make too much heads or tails of it, but I'd focus
my suspicions on the USB part. USB ports (both sides),
cable and especially the power source for the disk:
+1
does
it have a separate source, or does it
Albretch Mueller wrote:
> On 2/25/23, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> I am not using a USB enclosure per se, but a regular internal disk
> externally attached using a USB/power interface. I will test the USB
> cabling using a better looking, newer USB cable.
If you can swap the USB/SATA interface too
On 2/25/23, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> I can't make too much heads or tails of it, but I'd focus
> my suspicions on the USB part. USB ports (both sides),
> cable and especially the power source for the disk: does
> it have a separate source, or does it feed on the computer's
> USB?
the drive has
ells me it doesn't seem
to be the case) or are they or my ISP somehow hacking into my computer
to "motivate" such apparent errors?
How could I check either case? I have read about XFS needing special
care, but I would like to have a better idea of the source of such
errors first.
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 06:24:23AM +, Albretch Mueller wrote:
[...]
I can't make too much heads or tails of it, but I'd focus
my suspicions on the USB part. USB ports (both sides),
cable and especially the power source for the disk: does
it have a separate source, or does it feed on the compu
or are they or my ISP somehow hacking into my computer
to "motivate" such apparent errors?
How could I check either case? I have read about XFS needing special
care, but I would like to have a better idea of the source of such
errors first.
this is what I see on the screen when the driv
ce of ext4 partition is also
horrible, just not as bad as the xfs partition. What's the hardware
raid model? Does it have a battery backed cache? (I will guess not,
because the test is only 1G and that should fit into most current
caches?) If the test directly to the partition shows good p
a
> system partition with ext4 and a data partition with XFS.
>
> I get only 10 MB/s in write speed on the XFS data partition and 80 MB/s
> on the system partition.
>
>
> XFS mount option:
>
> /dev/sda4 on /var/srv/nfs type xfs (rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,noquota)
>
&
Hi.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 04:15:30PM +0200, Martin LEUSCH wrote:
> To complete the description there is infos about the XFS partition:
>
> meta-data=/dev/sda4 isize=256agcount=11, agsize=268435455
> blks
> = sect
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:53:25AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Can you rebuild the partition? If so, unmount it then perform the dd
directly to the device.
To be clear, ^^^ this will destroy the filesystem.
Mike Stone
n the server.
Can you rebuild the partition? If so, unmount it then perform the dd
directly to the device. (of=/dev/sda2 or whatever) What's the hardware
raid vendor? Honestly, the performance of ext4 partition is also
horrible, just not as bad as the xfs partition. What's the hardw
To complete the description there is infos about the XFS partition:
meta-data=/dev/sda4 isize=256agcount=11, agsize=268435455 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=1
= crc=0finobt=0
data
Le 22/08/2018 à 15:17, Michael Stone a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:25:51PM +0200, Martin LEUSCH wrote:
I tested write speed with dd command like "dd if=/dev/zero
of=/var/srv/nfs/
testfile bs=1G count=1 oflag=direct".
The 10 MB/s for the data partition also correspond to the behavior I
g
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 02:25:51PM +0200, Martin LEUSCH wrote:
I tested write speed with dd command like "dd if=/dev/zero of=/var/srv/nfs/
testfile bs=1G count=1 oflag=direct".
The 10 MB/s for the data partition also correspond to the behavior I get in
real situation, when I copy a big file on NF
Le 22/08/2018 à 13:15, Michael Stone a écrit :
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Martin LEUSCH wrote:
I have a NFS server with a hardware RAID5 on 3 HDD of 6 TB. I have a
system partition with ext4 and a data partition with XFS.
I get only 10 MB/s in write speed on the XFS data
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:41:08AM +0200, Martin LEUSCH wrote:
I have a NFS server with a hardware RAID5 on 3 HDD of 6 TB. I have a
system partition with ext4 and a data partition with XFS.
I get only 10 MB/s in write speed on the XFS data partition and 80
MB/s on the system partition.
how
Hi,
I have a NFS server with a hardware RAID5 on 3 HDD of 6 TB. I have a
system partition with ext4 and a data partition with XFS.
I get only 10 MB/s in write speed on the XFS data partition and 80 MB/s
on the system partition.
XFS mount option:
/dev/sda4 on /var/srv/nfs type xfs (rw
to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:55:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:16:01 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > - Shrinking:
> [...]
>> > - Growing
> [...]
>
>> And I sit here with eg
Brian wrote:
> Is this advice based on experience?
haha - this makes me smile. One should never forget this list is public and
whole world can read it.
Based on experience from last year (debian jessie) it is not possible to
shrink. Extending works very good and straight forward.
regards
nowldge about how tar handles an xfs filesystem. Ack the man page, its
> agnostic as there is zero mention of the filesytem in use.
>
> I use amanda as the tar manager here but my nightly backups are rather
> tiny compared to 13Tb, rarely exceeding 20 gigabytes for 4 machines.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:00:50AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote:
[...]
> ZFS is a file system originating with Sun in 2005. I don't know anyone
> who uses it. Largely considered experimental/unfinished outside of
> Solaris.
No. ZFS is in some contex
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:27:07AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 10:00:50 Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:12:40 Brian wrote:
> > You would advise using gparted to shri
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 10:00:50 Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:12:40 Brian wrote:
> > > You would advise using gparted to shrink an XFS partition in spite
> > > of
> >
gt;
> > > > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
> > > >
> > > > - /dev/sdb1 of 4TB
> > > > - /dev/sdb2 of 9TB
> > > >
> > > > Now I would like to decrease the first partition of 1TB in order
> >
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:59:56 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:55:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:16:01 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > - Shrinking:
>
> [...]
>
> > > - Growing
>
> [...]
>
> > And I sit here with egg on my f
? Or does it call out to the appropriate filesystem
utilities? Does it grok XFS better than XFS does?
According to , it needs filesystem
utilities for most filesystems.
Perhaps gparted knows how to do the dump/restore
thing, given enough spare disk space. That would be definitely
a (slow, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:55:12AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:16:01 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
> > - Shrinking:
[...]
> > - Growing
[...]
> And I sit here with egg on my face. :(
Not necessarily. Perhaps gparte
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:53:36AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:12:40 Brian wrote:
> > You would advise using gparted to shrink an XFS partition in spite of
> >
> > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Is_there_a_way_to_make_a_XFS_files
> >
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:16:01 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:54:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:43:36 ML mail wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 09:12:40 Brian wrote:
> On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 08:54:47 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:43:36 ML mail wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 04:05:03 to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:49:39PM +1000, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> > On 17 Aug 2016 5:43 pm, "ML mail" wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions
lesystem too.
On its own? Or does it call out to the appropriate filesystem
utilities? Does it grok XFS better than XFS does?
regards
- -- t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAle0Z0gACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbA4wCfQVh+ND4GTmOTdH5YF4SWwOfW
q18AnjtO7ELXiEulObueGLcAp0
On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 08:54:47 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:43:36 ML mail wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
> >
> > - /dev/sdb1 of 4TB
> > - /dev/sdb2 of 9TB
>
Le 17/08/2016 à 15:16, to...@tuxteam.de a écrit :
Gparted will grow (or shrink) the partition. Not the file system.
AFAIK, Gparted does resize the filesystem too.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:54:47AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:43:36 ML mail wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
> >
> > -
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:49:39 Igor Cicimov wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2016 5:43 pm, "ML mail" wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
>
> Afaik you cant shrink xfs file systems.
>
Is there a specific
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:43:36 ML mail wrote:
> Hello
>
> On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
>
> - /dev/sdb1 of 4TB
> - /dev/sdb2 of 9TB
>
> Now I would like to decrease the first partition of 1TB in order to
> increase the second
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 05:49:39PM +1000, Igor Cicimov wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2016 5:43 pm, "ML mail" wrote:
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
> >
>
&g
On 17 Aug 2016 5:43 pm, "ML mail" wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> On my Debian 8 machine I have two XFS data partitions on my disk:
>
Afaik you cant shrink xfs file systems.
> - /dev/sdb1 of 4TB
> - /dev/sdb2 of 9TB
>
> Now I would like to decrease the first part
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 06:48:31PM +0300, Adam Wilson wrote:
>
> Exactly. The reason I don't use ext4 for /boot, but ext2 is that I
> simply don't see the need for journalling in a partition that sees only
> occasional writes.
>
> I don't really want journalling for /boot, because it's largely
>
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 07:09:00 -0300 Renaud (Ron) OLGIATI
wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:52:12 +
> Darac Marjal wrote:
>
> > >Why use Ext2 and not Ext 3 or 4 for /boot?
> >
> > I believe the reasoning is to keep /boot as simple and as robust as
> > possible. ext3 and ext4 are, while mostly
On Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:52:12 +
Darac Marjal wrote:
> >Why use Ext2 and not Ext 3 or 4 for /boot?
>
> I believe the reasoning is to keep /boot as simple and as robust as
> possible. ext3 and ext4 are, while mostly compatible with ext2, not as
> well supported. There are third-party drivers
On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 08:52:23AM +0100, Albin Otterhäll wrote:
On 02/27/2016 06:16 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
[---] use ext2 for /boot [---]
Why use Ext2 and not Ext 3 or 4 for /boot?
I believe the reasoning is to keep /boot as simple and as robust as
possible. ext3 and ext4 are, while mostly
On 02/03/16 20:37, jdd wrote:
> Le 02/03/2016 03:10, Richard Hector a écrit :
>
>> I think that's two different things. The "cannot install grub
>> into an XFS partition" quote is about where grub lives - normally
>> in the MBR, but possibly in a partit
On 02/27/2016 06:16 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
> [---] use ext2 for /boot [---]
Why use Ext2 and not Ext 3 or 4 for /boot?
Le 02/03/2016 03:10, Richard Hector a écrit :
I think that's two different things. The "cannot install grub into an
XFS partition" quote is about where grub lives - normally in the MBR,
but possibly in a partition (but not if it's XFS).
is this still important with UEFI
On 02/03/16 00:33, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> "As we all know, you cannot install grub into an XFS partition because
>> > the XFS superblock is in sector 0 of the partition."
> I'm pretty sure this only holds true for LILO now, according to the
> official XFS FAQ
&
tes:
> > >
> > > > My solution to this (because XFS is my favourite filesystem
> > > > next to ReiserFS) has been to use ext2 for /boot and XFS for /
> > > > and /home. I can confirm this configuration works tickety-boo-
> > > > I use it on my J
On Sun, 28 Feb 2016 17:19:07 +0100 Saša Janiška
wrote:
> Adam Wilson writes:
>
> > Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working
> > flawlessly?
>
> No, but root under btrfs without extra /boot works.
>
> Here is my simplified /etc/fstab:
&g
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:28:57 -0600 Glenn Holmer
wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 01:31 PM, mj wrote:
> > On 02/28/2016 03:34 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
> >> Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working
> >> flawlessly?
> >
> > I think we have been ru
On 02/28/2016 01:31 PM, mj wrote:
> On 02/28/2016 03:34 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
>> Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working flawlessly?
>
> I think we have been running root xfs, without a seperate boot partition
> for ages. This has been working at least s
On 02/28/2016 03:34 PM, Adam Wilson wrote:
Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working flawlessly?
I think we have been running root xfs, without a seperate boot partition
for ages. This has been working at least since wheezy, but I guess even
earlier.
Just try it.
Adam Wilson writes:
> Let me get this straight- /boot on XFS, with GRUB, working flawlessly?
No, but root under btrfs without extra /boot works.
Here is my simplified /etc/fstab:
# / was on /dev/sda3 during installation
/dev/sda3 / btrfs noatime,autodefrag,compress-force=
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 05:34:18PM +0300, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:56:59 +0100 Saša Janiška
> wrote:
>
> > Adam Wilson writes:
> >
> > > My solution to this (because XFS is my favourite filesyst
On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 23:56:59 +0100 Saša Janiška
wrote:
> Adam Wilson writes:
>
> > My solution to this (because XFS is my favourite filesystem next to
> > ReiserFS) has been to use ext2 for /boot and XFS for / and /home. I
> > can confirm this configuration works tic
David Christensen writes:
> Been there, done that, and lost data. If you can't afford 2 @ 2 TB
> disks right now, get a replacement 1 TB disk until you can.
Thanks for sharing...well, I'll use 2TB disk in the btrfs mirror with
old 1TB disk and the remaining space use for partion along with
rsync
Adam Wilson writes:
> My solution to this (because XFS is my favourite filesystem next to
> ReiserFS) has been to use ext2 for /boot and XFS for / and /home. I
> can confirm this configuration works tickety-boo- I use it on my
> Jessie box at the moment.
That's really strange t
David Christensen writes:
> Yes -- checking my notes, it looks like btrfs on /boot breaks
> install-grub (in the installer), but ext4 on /boot and btrfs on /
> works.
On my Sid, I use btrfs and / and /home are subvolumes and no problems at
all booting it.
Sincerely,
Gour
--
For him who has c
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 12:09:09 -0800 David Christensen
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:11:17AM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> > I found that the Wheezy installer offers btrfs (xfs also?), but only
> > boots ext[234]
>
> On 02/26/2016 11:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:11:17AM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
I found that the Wheezy installer offers btrfs (xfs also?), but only
boots ext[234]
On 02/26/2016 11:24 AM, Dan Ritter wrote:
My wheezy box has an ext4 /boot and a btrfs /. No problems booting
that.
Yes -- checking my notes
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 11:11:17AM -0800, David Christensen wrote:
> On 02/26/2016 07:40 AM, Saša Janiška wrote:
>
> >I plan to
> >buy a new 2TB disk and the old 1TB disk use as additional storage, but
> >this time to put XFS (under lvm2) on all disks (my desktop has UPS
&
until you can.
I plan to
buy a new 2TB disk and the old 1TB disk use as additional storage, but
this time to put XFS (under lvm2) on all disks (my desktop has UPS
unit), but wonder what do you think about using XFS for root partition
as well, iow. if Debian supports it and/or what should I do
Hello,
at the moment I use 2x1TB disks in btrfs raid1 array, but one disk is
failing/dying and not having enough money for two 2TB disks, I plan to
buy a new 2TB disk and the old 1TB disk use as additional storage, but
this time to put XFS (under lvm2) on all disks (my desktop has UPS
unit), but
On 06/12/2015 12:45 AM, Peter Viskup wrote:
Always consider using ddrescue [1] instead of dd - especially once you are
not sure about the state of the drive.
Tool ddrescue is taking 'dd' image of the drive, but will skip all the
areas where the read will return an error. Standard 'dd' will try to
Always consider using ddrescue [1] instead of dd - especially once you are
not sure about the state of the drive.
Tool ddrescue is taking 'dd' image of the drive, but will skip all the
areas where the read will return an error. Standard 'dd' will try to
continuously re-read that area which could ca
On Thursday 11 June 2015 23:46:02 Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> This is the whole smartctl output:
>
> http://paste.debian.net/220687/
>
> Can I understand the following line as that the disk might be fine?
>
> SMART overall-health self-assessment test result: PASSED
Details show that no bad sectors
On 06/11/2015 12:32 AM, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
Yesterday I found out that my extra disk shut down. I don't know what steps to
follow from now on. I'm searching online about the error as I found in the
logs, and I don't know what steps to follow.
...
I don't know where to proceed from here. The
El Thursday 11 June 2015, Ric Moore escribió:
> On 06/11/2015 03:32 AM, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
> Or should I create an image as a
>
> > file stored somewhere else?
>
> Just for grins, unplug the connector(s) from the drive AND at the
> motherboard, both. Plug it all back in again. That has work
On 06/11/2015 03:32 AM, Alejandro Exojo wrote:
Or should I create an image as a
file stored somewhere else?
Just for grins, unplug the connector(s) from the drive AND at the
motherboard, both. Plug it all back in again. That has worked for me
more than once, and I replaced those cables after
elevant):
http://paste.debian.net/220272/
In particular, I think this is the most significative:
end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 3297507911
XFS (sdc1): metadata I/O error: block 0x7477cb18 ("xlog_iodone") error 5
numblks 64
XFS (sdc1): xfs_do_force_shutdown(0x2) called from line 1172 of file
accounting of its disadvantages in a context
> > which struck me as reliable.
>
> As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should
> probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly
> impact your application.
XFS is slower than ext4 o
truck me as reliable.
As far as I understand, xfs is an excelent filesystem and should
probably be considered whenever filesystem performance can significantly
impact your application.
I'm preferring ext4 simply because it's more likely to be supported out
of the box in most scenar
watched the whole shutdown-reboot sequence. Usually I
>> don't.
>
> If you want *really* fast fsck on boot switch to xfs ;)
What are the downsides of xfs, in overview summary form?
Serious question - I know it has its advantages for particular
scenarios, but I don't know ho
ing an hour just in case.
>
>> If that doesn't do it maybe there's a bug here.
>
> It sounds like that.
>
> I took a look at the xfs source code in the kernel tree. It looks like
> the discard code is simply never called except for when there's an
> ioctl
andom data, read the sectors
with hdparm and then removed the file and did a flush. If discard was
active the sector should be zeroed out. It was however still there
after a sync, and also after waiting an hour just in case.
> If that doesn't do it maybe there's a bug here.
It sounds lik
On 6/29/2013 11:45 PM, John Andreasson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Post the XFS mount entry(s) in dmesg and any errors.
>
> [ 2.119489] SGI XFS with ACLs, security attributes, realtime, large
> block/inode numbers, no debug enabled
&g
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:47 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Post the XFS mount entry(s) in dmesg and any errors.
[2.119489] SGI XFS with ACLs, security attributes, realtime, large
block/inode numbers, no debug enabled
[2.119716] SGI XFS Quota Management subsystem
[2.120753] XFS (s
On 6/29/2013 6:17 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Please keep replies on list.
>
> On 6/29/2013 3:57 PM, John Andreasson wrote:
>
>> /dev/disk/by-uuid/---xxxx- / xfs
>> rw,noatime,attr2,delaylog,noquota 0 0
>
> Post the XFS mount en
Please keep replies on list.
On 6/29/2013 3:57 PM, John Andreasson wrote:
> /dev/disk/by-uuid/---- / xfs
> rw,noatime,attr2,delaylog,noquota 0 0
Post the XFS mount entry(s) in dmesg and any errors.
> Doesn't look promising. The mount options in
vtmpfs rw,relatime,size=10240k,nr_inodes=2043449,mode=755 0 0
devpts /dev/pts devpts
rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620,ptmxmode=000 0 0
tmpfs /run tmpfs rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,size=1635204k,mode=755 0 0
/dev/disk/by-uuid/----xxxxxxxx / xfs
rw,noatime,attr2,delaylog,no
John Andreasson wrote at 2013-06-29 13:46 -0500:
> So my question is: Does TRIM work with XFS in Wheezy and what should I do
> to use it?
See <http://xfs.org/index.php/FITRIM/discard>. Add the 'discard'
mount option in /etc/fstab. I suppose, to trim all old eraseable
b
On 6/29/2013 1:46 PM, John Andreasson wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have a question about XFS and TRIM on SSD. I'm unable to determine if I
> can use it in Debian 7.1. I have searched the documentation and found
> positive information on ext4, but not on XFS.
>
> Just to te
ans-J. Ullrich" schrieb:
>
>> So my question is: Does TRIM work with XFS in Wheezy and what should
>I do
>> to use it?
>>
>> John
>
>Hi John,
>
>as far as I know, the partitions will be correct created by debian.
>Trimmings
>is not a problem o
On Saturday, June 29, 2013, Hans-J. Ullrich wrote:
>
> as far as I know, the partitions will be correct created by debian.
> Trimmings
> is not a problem of the filesystem, but of partitioning. So, you can either
> partitition with debian (whhezy or higher), or you can also use a
> live-file cd
> l
> So my question is: Does TRIM work with XFS in Wheezy and what should I do
> to use it?
>
> John
Hi John,
as far as I know, the partitions will be correct created by debian. Trimmings
is not a problem of the filesystem, but of partitioning. So, you can either
partitition
Hello.
I have a question about XFS and TRIM on SSD. I'm unable to determine if I
can use it in Debian 7.1. I have searched the documentation and found
positive information on ext4, but not on XFS.
Just to test I installed Wheezy on a ThinkPad equipped with an SSD and
picked XFS as the root
IM code is common to
all Linux filesystems. But if you've read my follow up email you'll
realize you're not going to be able to use TRIM anyway, not with RAID.
> Will Debian 6.0.5 TRIM my SSD automatically?
NO. It must manually be enabled. And again it won't work with RA
On 8/31/2012 1:44 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 10:15 PM, Andy Chandra wrote:
>
>> I was wondering if Debian 6.0.5 support TRIM (for Solid-state Disks) using
>> XFS filesystem on Debian 6.0.5?
The server specs on your website list two 160GB SSDs in RAID
On 8/30/2012 10:15 PM, Andy Chandra wrote:
> I was wondering if Debian 6.0.5 support TRIM (for Solid-state Disks) using
> XFS filesystem on Debian 6.0.5?
Not with the default kernel. Read on.
> Anyone has clue about installing XFS filesystem on Debian 6.0.5?
The XFS driver will
Hi,
I was wondering if Debian 6.0.5 support TRIM (for Solid-state Disks) using XFS
filesystem on Debian 6.0.5?
Anyone has clue about installing XFS filesystem on Debian 6.0.5?
I'm planning for using MySQL (/var) on XFS filesystem on my SSD.
--
Best Regards,
Andy Chandra (Mr)
IF Founde
On 07/13/2012 05:21 PM, Alexander Mestiashvili wrote:
> Hi Debian folks,
>
> Could anyone please explain me why does this warning appear?
>
> mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe width 640 is not the same as the volume
> stripe width 2048
>
> How does xfs know about volume stri
Hi Debian folks,
Could anyone please explain me why does this warning appear?
mkfs.xfs: Specified data stripe width 640 is not the same as the volume
stripe width 2048
How does xfs know about volume stripe size width ?
here is the command:
mkfs.xfs -fb size=4k -d su=64k,sw=5 /dev/mapper/mpath2
Hello,
I try to install a Debian Squeeze on a PC and I have some errors when
I put the whole system on a single XFS partition.
When installing the base system (debootstrap) I have warnings like:
http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/pool/main/o//x_amd64.deb was corrupt
However, when I format
On Sunday, May 06, 2012 05:19:20, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 04 mai 12, 15:08:57, Chris Knadle wrote:
...
> > Speed is generally what XFS is good at, *except* when it comes to
> > deletion of a large number of files -- that's where it's slow.
>
> On advise of
On Vi, 04 mai 12, 15:08:57, Chris Knadle wrote:
>
> Note this means running 'xfs_check' is done when the filesystem is not
> mounted. _Supposedly_ it can also be run if the filesystem is mounted read-
> only, but in practice I find it's best (and easier) to run the XF
1 - 100 of 749 matches
Mail list logo
