On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 09:45 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 2/27/12 10:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
> >> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?
> >
> > No, it is only in - so far. It
On 2/27/12 10:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
>> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?
>
> No, it is only in - so far. It has not been released in a -0.3*
> ebuild yet.
>
> The last patch to re
On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 20:29 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 27-02-2012 a las 16:06 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> > On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> > >
> > > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8
El lun, 27-02-2012 a las 16:06 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> >
> > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> > rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> Given
On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
Given supporting comments to this thread (and totally off-topic
zfs/btrfs discussion),
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> If you have proper backups, you should be able to destroy the pool,
> make a new one and restore the backup. If you do not have backups,
> then I think there are more important things to consider than your
> ability to do this without them.
I
> That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes. You can
> create raidz's and add them to a zpool. You can add individual
> drives/partitions to zpools. You can remove any of these from a zpool
> at any time and have it move data into other storage areas. However,
> you can't resha
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> raidz has 3 varieties, which are single parity, double parity and
> triple parity. As for reshaping, ZFS is a logical volume manager. You
> can set and resize limits on ZFS datasets as you please.
That isn't my understanding as far as raidz re
> Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks? I can't see how
> its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
> superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).
ZFS uses ARC as its page replacement algorithm, which is superior to
the LRU page repla
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> ZFSOnLinux performance tuning is not a priority either, but there have
> been a few patches and the performance is good. btrfs might one day
> outperform ZFS in terms of single disk performance, assuming that it
> does not already, but I questi
> Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
> ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
> likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
> most likely to not be running Gentoo. There are a bazillion problems
> with btrfs
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion.
Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
>> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
>
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds
On 02/24/2012 08:10 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Also there are some things that dont work, one of which was a few
> packages would always fail to emerge when using btrfs for temp storage
> (I think one was libreoffice)
I've been using btrfs for temp storage, for more than a year, and
haven't no
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:44 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> >> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
> >> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
> >
> > Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't
> *think* I've lost anything... :)
>
>From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have
heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathe
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
>> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
>
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds
> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds right
now, but they your data should be safe unless you go o
On 24 February 2012 17:56, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
> lib:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
>
> #
El vie, 24-02-2012 a las 18:56 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
> lib:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i think,
> so it should be even safer to copy/paste :)
Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
Rich
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
Might even be worth patching revdep-rebuild:
revdep-rebuild --library /usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4 --autoclean
--
Kent
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:56:44 +0100
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" wrote:
> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per
> preserved lib:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one c
Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
lib:
# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
# rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
rm '/
24 matches
Mail list logo
