Am Freitag, 9. November 2012 schrieb Tomáš Hulata:
> Hello,
Hi Tomáš,
> I have question related to extending JFS size to new size
> of LV (using LVM), I found that I have to use
>
> mount -o remount,resize
> mountpoint
>
> and also that there were some problems re
Hello,
I have question related to extending JFS size to new size
of LV (using LVM), I found that I have to use
mount -o remount,resize
mountpoint
and also that there were some problems related to older
kernels and in these cases exact size should be used like
MOUNT -O
REMOUNT,RESIZE
On 7 June 2010 17:50, Camaleón wrote:
> In fact, it seems there are dedicated tools for defragging many of the
> most popular filesystems:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defrag#Approach_and_defragmenters_by_file_system_type
>
> What I have not found is something for ReiserFS volumes :-?
>
That
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:06:01 +0300, Dotan Cohen wrote:
> This seems to imply that JFS needs to be defragged:
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/JFS_Filesystem#Defragmenting_JFS
> "JFS, like all file systems, will degrade in performance over time due
> to file fragmentation.
This seems to imply that JFS needs to be defragged:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/JFS_Filesystem#Defragmenting_JFS
"JFS, like all file systems, will degrade in performance over time due
to file fragmentation. While there is in-place defragmentation code in
the JFS utilities, this is
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:48:27AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/29/08 06:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>
> > Anyway, are you just joking or are there serious reasons against XFS? I
> > am not
>
> Yes, it's just Austin Powers and Mo
Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:56PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
I have to agree - I've been using a combo of reiser and jfs for the
past 5 years as different par
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/29/08 06:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote at 2008-04-29 11:34 +0200:
>> On 04/29/08 01:24, Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:52:16PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 04/28/08 19:22, Alex Samad wrote:
> some r
Ron Johnson wrote at 2008-04-29 11:34 +0200:
On 04/29/08 01:24, Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:52:16PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 04/28/08 19:22, Alex Samad wrote:
some reason that xfs is not being talked about?
We hate it because Dr. Evil uses it.
has this got something to do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/29/08 01:24, Alex Samad wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:52:16PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 04/28/08 19:22, Alex Samad wrote:
> [snip]
>>> some reason that xfs is not being talked about?
>> We hate it because Dr. Evil uses it.
> has thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alex Samad wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:19:15AM -0500, Hose wrote:
>> On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:56PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose w
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:19:15AM -0500, Hose wrote:
>
> On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:56PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>> some reason that xfs is not being talked about?
>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 09:52:16PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/28/08 19:22, Alex Samad wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > some reason that xfs is not being talked about?
>
> We hate it because Dr. Evil uses it.
has this got something to do with elde
On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:22 PM, Alex Samad wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:56PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
I have to agree - I've been using a combo of reiser and jfs for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/28/08 19:22, Alex Samad wrote:
[snip]
>
> some reason that xfs is not being talked about?
We hate it because Dr. Evil uses it.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:17:56PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
>
> > I have to agree - I've been using a combo of reiser and jfs for the
> > past
Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
I have to agree - I've been using a combo of reiser and jfs for the
past 5 years as different parts of production systems, and I find both
to be f
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:12PM -0500, Hose wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
> I have to agree - I've been using a combo of reiser and jfs for the
> past 5 years as different parts of production systems, and I find both
> to be fairly reliable, and m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/15/08 23:16, Hose wrote:
>
[snip]
> sometimes be a hassle). I have a severe dislike for ext, though I
Why?
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
We want... a Shrubbery!!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hose wrote:
| On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
|> I use JFS, and have been quite satisfied with its performance, and
|> reliability.
|> ~ On the subject of dead file systems, if they're going to remove JFS
|> f
On Apr 15, 2008, at 8:49 PM, Chris Walters wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Alex Samad wrote:
| Hi
|
| I remember reading in the list that JFS was a dying FS, because IBM
| wasn't maintaining it full time. And that it might disappear from
the
| kernel soon.
|
| An
On 16/04/2008, Alex Samad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I usually fill up tmp with crap.
>
> but i did follwo up some more on jfs , seems like there is no full time
> maintenance on it so, and i had thought I had read that it was meant to
> be fast for lots of small
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Alex Samad wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:49:44PM -0400, Chris Walters wrote:
|> Alex Samad wrote:
|> | Hi
| [snip]
|> Anyhow, JFS hasn't given me any problems, and at one time I used it for
|> everything except for my /boot
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:49:44PM -0400, Chris Walters wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Alex Samad wrote:
> | Hi
[snip]
> Hi Alex,
>
> I use JFS, and have been quite satisfied with its performance, and
> reliability.
> ~ On the su
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:39:05PM -0400, Douglas A. Tutty wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:26:15AM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> > I remember reading in the list that JFS was a dying FS, because IBM
> > wasn't maintaining it full time. And that it might disappear from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Alex Samad wrote:
| Hi
|
| I remember reading in the list that JFS was a dying FS, because IBM
| wasn't maintaining it full time. And that it might disappear from the
| kernel soon.
|
| Any one still using it. I was actually thinking of usi
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 07:26:15AM +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> I remember reading in the list that JFS was a dying FS, because IBM
> wasn't maintaining it full time. And that it might disappear from the
> kernel soon.
>
> Any one still using it. I was actually thinking of
Hi
I remember reading in the list that JFS was a dying FS, because IBM
wasn't maintaining it full time. And that it might disappear from the
kernel soon.
Any one still using it. I was actually thinking of using it for my /tmp
directory
Alex
--
"First of all, I'm not going
systems...).
For me, its not anecdotal. I switched to ReiserFS from ext3 when I was
having troubles with ext2/3 fsck messing up. It turned out later to be
a bug that was fixed. In the mean time, ReiserFS also messed up (as in
lost important data in-between daily backups). I then switched to JFS
a
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Joe Brenner wrote:
> Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reiserfs = designed by one person who has had some kind of problems (I
> > haven't looked into it). If damage occurs (e.g. unclean shutdown), may
> > not be able to fix the damage and loses data.
>
>
On Jan 19, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
But all of that still gives me no reason to change all of my ext2
partitions to something else.
I decided to change the first time I had a server down for an hour
because it was waiting for the on-boot fsck to finish... :)
--
To UNSUBSC
On Jan 18, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 4:27 PM, Damon L. Chesser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
xfs sure does copy and delete really large files faster - I do use it
for video at home.
How big do files have to be before one starts to notice the advantages
of XFS?
In my exp
On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:11 PM, Jimmy Wu wrote:
(4) ReiserFS can be flaky on a system crash.
I haven't found it to be flaky on system crashes. I have found it to
be extremely unforgiving of disk corruption and IDE bus problems. I
was able to recover the data with reiserfsck, but it took a ve
Joe Brenner wrote:
Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reiserfs = designed by one person who has had some kind of problems (I
haven't looked into it). If damage occurs (e.g. unclean shutdown), may
not be able to fix the damage and loses data.
I've been using resierfs for some time (i
Douglas A. Tutty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reiserfs = designed by one person who has had some kind of problems (I
> haven't looked into it). If damage occurs (e.g. unclean shutdown), may
> not be able to fix the damage and loses data.
I've been using resierfs for some time (including on a fl
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Jan Willem Stumpel shared this with us all:
>--} So now I am more or less ready to take the plunge. But I would
>--} still like some advice.
>--}
>--} 1. Is it true that ext3 always lets you recover smoothly after a
>--} "freeze and pull the plug", or after a power cut? Or a
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:32:25PM -0500, Allan Wind wrote:
> On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > > > (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3?
> >
> > no to either
> > /boot should not be a single partition by itself..
> > it is part of /bin, /lib
To the other Mr. Johnson, sorry for the double, I botched the
reply/reply to list distinction there.
On Jan 19, 2008 12:27 PM, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 01/19/08 13:44, Curt Howland wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 January 2008, Jan Willem Stumpel was heard to say:
> >> Step 6: type tun
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 02:27:23PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 01/19/08 13:44, Curt Howland wrote:
> > If I may interject, creating the journal just creates a blank file.
>
> So when does the journaling begin? At remount?
Perhaps on the next write once it is mounted as ext3? When the journ
Curt Howland wrote:
> If I may interject, creating the journal just creates a blank
> file.
This would explain why creating the journal does not seem to take
any time. But "strings" showed that there was a lot of stuff (at
least lots of filenames) in it. Perhaps the journal is *created*
as a blan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/19/08 13:44, Curt Howland wrote:
> On Saturday 19 January 2008, Jan Willem Stumpel was heard to say:
>> Step 6: type tune2fs -j /dev/hda5. The journal was created
>> instantaneously (I'd expected this to take a long time.
>> but i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 19 January 2008, Jan Willem Stumpel was heard to say:
> Step 6: type tune2fs -j /dev/hda5. The journal was created
> instantaneously (I'd expected this to take a long time.
> but it did not).
If I may interject, creating th
Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> Some steps may have been unnecessary, but it seems I have a
> working ext3 system now. It is really easy. The real smoke test
> will come, of course, when I pull the plug. Will do this now; if
> you do not hear from me, the test will have failed. Thanks to all
> who res
Paul Johnson wrote:
> Step 1: Get root privileges.
> Step 2: Type tune2fs -j /dev/whatever
> Step 3: Remount the filesystem ext3...
I did this, and indeed it was amazingly easy. On a partition of
about 24 G (well, this is an *old* disk!) a file /.journal of 128
M (indeed much less than 1%) was cr
On Jan 19, 2008 9:39 AM, Andrew Sackville-West
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 02:35:25PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> ...
> >
> > But sometimes bugs in applications can cause a complete freeze of
> > X, incl. keyboard and mouse. It happens to me about once a year,
> > un
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 02:35:25PM +0100, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
...
>
> But sometimes bugs in applications can cause a complete freeze of
> X, incl. keyboard and mouse. It happens to me about once a year,
> unfortunately also yesterday evening. In such a case there is
> nothing you can do but
On Jan 19, 2008 5:35 AM, Jan Willem Stumpel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am especially put off by the Wikipedia article on ext3. It gives
> a rather long list of "disadvantages". One of them ("No
> checksumming in journal") even sounds pretty frightening. The list
> of "advantages" is very short,
On Jan 19, 2008 7:17 AM, Hugo Vanwoerkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ext3 = ext2 + metadata(default) journaling. Therefore slower than ext2.
> But all of that still gives me no reason to change all of my ext2
> partitions to something else.
ext3 isn't noticably slower for user-environments,
no more. I don't know
who is following XFS to ensure problems don't arise.
JFS = designed by IBM for large databases, focus on fast checks after an
unclean shutdown to get the server back up fast. To do that safely,
note that speed is less of an issue than for the target for XFS. It w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/19/08 07:35, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote:
> Александър Л. Димитров wrote:
>> Quoth Hugo Vanwoerkom:
>>> ext2. Never have used any other.
>> I seriously hope that this was a joke...
>
> Maybe it was, but I never used anything but ext2 either, and th
Александър Л. Димитров wrote:
> Quoth Hugo Vanwoerkom:
>>
>> ext2. Never have used any other.
>
> I seriously hope that this was a joke...
Maybe it was, but I never used anything but ext2 either, and that
is no joke. It has worked fine for many years. I often considered
"upgrading" to ext3, but so
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 06:47:29 +0900
David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ext3 is best if you are dealing with a mixture of both and has the
> added security factor of defaulting to Ext2 if it fails. Although I
> have never had reason to find out.
I'm in the habit of using buggy and crash-prone hardw
o Linux. Irix is no more. I don't know
who is following XFS to ensure problems don't arise.
JFS = designed by IBM for large databases, focus on fast checks after an
unclean shutdown to get the server back up fast. To do that safely,
note that speed is less of an issue than for the targ
Damon L. Chesser wrote:
Jimmy Wu wrote:
Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a "group reply"
to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is
top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this
goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell m
Jimmy Wu wrote:
Wow, thanks for the many quick responses. I'm doing a "group reply"
to the list by quoting everyone in one message. Not sure if this is
top-posting, bottom-posting, or conversational-posting, but if this
goes against mailing list etiquette, please tell me/flame me gently,
and I
to wipe it and either shrink its partition and
replace it with XP or possibly give all the space to Debian,
repartitioning/reinstalling as necessary. I hope my HD won't complain
about that.
> Sure. But who the hell uses JFS on a laptop?
:-) Some of the forums google turned up had pe
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:32:25PM -0500, Allan Wind wrote:
> On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > > > (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3?
> >
> > no to either
> > /boot should not be a single partition by itself..
> > it is part of /bin, /lib
On 2008-01-18T16:11:17-0500, Jimmy Wu wrote:
> (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times.
I use ext3 on same hardware, and (clean) mounts do not take any
significant time:
[ 19.209034] EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode.
[ 19.209039] VFS: Mounted
Quoth Hugo Vanwoerkom:
>
> ext2. Never have used any other.
I seriously hope that this was a joke...
Aleks
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
g for seconds and nanoseconds... perhaps. I suggest you stop
minding the seconds, though, it's of no good use. When do you need to mount that
thing except at boot time? Right, never. And when do you boot? Right, you got a
laptop with suspend/resume... my laptop's uptimes frequently make it
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:32:25 -0500
Allan Wind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > > > (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than
> > > > ext3?
> >
> > no to either
> > /boot should not be a single partition by itself..
> > it
On 2008-01-18T14:05:25-0800, Alvin Oga wrote:
> > > (8) Is there any advantage to using ext2 for /boot rather than ext3?
>
> no to either
> /boot should not be a single partition by itself..
> it is part of /bin, /lib, /sbin /etc ... which is the rootfs
>
> even if /boot is fin
hi ya
> Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
>
> Jimmy Wu wrote:
> > (1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times.
any journally fs will be "slower" than non-journaling fs ( ext2, dos, etc )
> > (2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, altho
ether some of
the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a
simple true/false is enough for most of them).
So, here goes:
(1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times.
(2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be
extended
Jimmy Wu wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to decide on which file systems to use for a Debian
install on a personal laptop. It's a Thinkpad T61 with one 160 GB HD.
Hello Jimmy,
I have found:
Xfs is best for large file sizes, if that's what you are dealing with -
graphics, and the ilk;
Reiserfs
ether some of
the statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a
simple true/false is enough for most of them).
So, here goes:
(1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times.
(2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be
extended
statements I've seen, and all I am asking for is verification (a
simple true/false is enough for most of them).
So, here goes:
(1) ext3 mounts and unmounts slowly, resulting in increased boot times.
(2) Neither JFS nor XFS can be made smaller, although they can be
extended if needed.
(3)
Hello Stefan,
We've been having a discussion on debian-user on the differences between
XFS and JFS and where one would be better than the other for different
applications. In the course of the discussion, Justin Piszcz sent a
copy of an email he received from Dave Kleikamp at IBM who do
dn't hope for a quick fix. I'm guessing
> something went wrong with the filesystem when you had to reboot and the
> file got corrupted. Not the first time this have happened, but hopefully
> aptitude will be able to handle this gracefully in the future. See bug
> 400962 about t
On Thursday 23 November 2006 12:39, Amit Joshi wrote:
> I recently formatted a couple of my partitions with JFS. Now, the problem
> is, they don't get mounted by default on boot-up even though they are
> in /etc/fstab.
>
> /dev/hda1 /mnt/data jfsdefaults 0
I recently formatted a couple of my partitions with JFS. Now, the problem is,
they don't get mounted by default on boot-up even though they are
in /etc/fstab.
/dev/hda1 /mnt/data jfsdefaults 0 0
/dev/hda2 /mnt/stuff jfs defaults 0
On 08/03/2006 02:01 PM, Jeff Cleverley wrote:
Greetings,
We have a Dell 2850 running the 2.6.15-1 kernel and have created 2 JFS
file systems from the non-boot internal drives. Both JFS file system
disks come from the same raid group. The other day the system quit
responding and we ended up
Greetings,
We have a Dell 2850 running the 2.6.15-1 kernel and have created 2 JFS
file systems from the non-boot internal drives. Both JFS file system
disks come from the same raid group. The other day the system quit
responding and we ended up having to power cycle the box. When it
crash and loss of data I
heard about XFS. Is JFS similarly unstable? Why it seems to be so little
used (or there is nobody complaining about that, because it just
works :-))?
Best,
Matěj
--
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber
about XFS. Is JFS similarly unstable? Why it seems to be so little
used (or there is nobody complaining about that, because it just
works :-))?
Best,
Matěj
--
GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC
http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
23 Marion St.
Matt Price wrote:
>add jfs support without recompiling the whole kernel?
>
>
You can configure jfs to be compiled as module.
Chris.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi folks,
when I made my current kernel I had never heard of jfs &, since I was
having trouble ocmpiling, unchecked it in make xconfig. Now I want to
use jfs for storing large (video) files. Is there a way to quickly
add jfs support without recompiling the whole kernel? I use a couple
of
Thanks for your reply. This afternoon I will try it.
Thanks again!!
Dennis Stosberg escribió:
> dclemen wrote:
>
>> Hi, I have "/" directory on a partition with jfs file system. It has
>> 140Gb size, but I remove another partition with 40Gb that was behind "/&q
dclemen wrote:
> Hi, I have "/" directory on a partition with jfs file system. It has
> 140Gb size, but I remove another partition with 40Gb that was behind "/"
> partition. So I want to resize my / to get these 40Gb.
>
> I read some sites to resize parti
Hi, I have "/" directory on a partition with jfs file system. It has
140Gb size, but I remove another partition with 40Gb that was behind "/"
partition. So I want to resize my / to get these 40Gb.
I read some sites to resize partitions with:
# mount -o remount,resize /home
-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: jfs or reiser
I need to choose a filesystem for many small files. I read that
reiser is good, but I also see reports of problems with reiser, so I
wonder if I should use jfs instead.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not g
I need to choose a filesystem for many small files. I read that
reiser is good, but I also see reports of problems with reiser, so I
wonder if I should use jfs instead.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote:
>
> > here's the fun freebie script to test which filesystem is faster
> > - format the disk(partitions) once
> > - do 3 passes copying 2.3GB of files from /dev/hda to /dev/hdc
>
> Your benchmark is fundamentally skewed. It uses tar to copy fil
> here's the fun freebie script to test which filesystem is faster
> - format the disk(partitions) once
> - do 3 passes copying 2.3GB of files from /dev/hda to /dev/hdc
Your benchmark is fundamentally skewed. It uses tar to copy files from your
root dirctory to $MNT without caching
hi ya
for the long weekend ... i spent about 8hrs playing..
here's the fun freebie script to test which filesystem is faster
- format the disk(partitions) once
- do 3 passes copying 2.3GB of files from /dev/hda to /dev/hdc
http://www.linux-sec.net/FS/Scripts/
(
a with an ext3 file
> system.That partition is fragmented so badly that my cd burner works
> with 10x tops.
> I was looking for other file systems and want to give JFS
> or XFS a try. Has anybody experience with those? Issues?
>
> Klaus
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hello,
I got currently a partition that holds all my data with an ext3 file
system.That partition is fragmented so badly that my cd burner works
with 10x tops.
I was looking for other file systems and want to give JFS
or XFS a try. Has anybody experience with those? Issues?
Klaus
--
To
Hi list,
Sorry about the cross post, I wasn't sure which was the correct list for
this question.
I have managed to break a JFS system and was wondering if there are JFS
rescue / root disks available for Debian or will I have to build my own?
I know there are boot disks out there for XF
FS or JFS?
I dont wont to do it with a bunch of disks if possible...
(Bandwidth for download ist not a problem :)
Thanks in advance,
ar
Hello Andreas,
there are some .raw images for wood and sid on this site:
ftp://ftp.kando.hu/pub/CDROM-Images/debian-unofficial
And here
>
To: "Debian-User (E-Mail)"
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 5:06 PM
Subject: Boot-CD for woody with ReiserFS or XFS or JFS?
>
> Hi,
>
> i try to install an Woody box and perhaps a second and third..., and want
to
> use a journaling fs.
> A search with google and -
Hi,
i try to install an Woody box and perhaps a second and third..., and want to
use a journaling fs.
A search with google and -groups didn't reveal anything useful (better to
much to find the useful ones) so i ask you:
Is there a boot cd for woody with ReiserFS or XFS or JFS?
I dont wont
dit /etc/passwd and remove the password entry.
I was going to that (ie: mounting the disks) on my working Linux x86,
but I didn't see jfs as the supported filesystem. What is "jfs" anyway?
A proprietary AIX's filesystem? I hope Debian for PPC (if there's such
thing) sup
92 matches
Mail list logo
