Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 22/1/25 09:37, Jeffrey Walton wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 7:22 PM Stephen Morris wrote: To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used the Real World Performance Profile. For its sequential read performance it is showing around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 (3TB

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On Sat, Nov 16, 2024 at 7:22 PM Stephen Morris wrote: > > To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used the Real > World Performance Profile. For its sequential read performance it is showing > around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 (3TB Seagate Barracuda),

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

> On 21 Nov 2024, at 13:57, John Mellor wrote: > > In the Disks app, select the disk, go to the 3 dots on the top right, select > write cache and select disable. I'm unsure, but you might need to reboot as > well. You can also do this in the CLI, but its been years si

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Disks in mainframe days had no onboard cache, and the O/S had to do all that.  Today that has been built into much cheaper disks. While there is no mechanism to determine what is cached by the onboard disk memory and what is not, there are situations where you need disk cacheing to be disabled

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

hardware just being a simple interface. The storage device - the disc drive itself - is a pretty dumb device. To optimise use of a storage device (to that degree) you'd need to make OS- and file-system-specific decisions. That's really outside the scope of a simple storage device th

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 19/11/24 13:22, Tim wrote: On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 08:39 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: 40 years ago mainframe storage controllers provided functionality to control what files were loaded into the storage cache and how much of the file was loaded, I just thought hard disks had advanced enough to

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 2:27 AM Tim via users wrote: > The other thing to consider with drive thrashing, that I don't recall > seeing being mentioned in this thread is a drive with errors. If it's > having trouble reading/writing its media, performance will be awful. > > At one time the standard

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 12:52 +1030, Tim via users wrote: > On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 08:39 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: > > 40 years ago mainframe storage controllers provided functionality to > > control what files were loaded into the storage cache and how much of > > the file was loaded, I just thoug

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On Tue, 2024-11-19 at 08:39 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote: > 40 years ago mainframe storage controllers provided functionality to > control what files were loaded into the storage cache and how much of > the file was loaded, I just thought hard disks had advanced enough to > now provide similar funct

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 2024-11-17 14:32, Felix Miata wrote: Stephen Morris composed on 2024-11-18 09:07 (UTC+1100): For me on my hard disk its giving: /dev/sdd: Timing cached reads:   52114 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26165.57 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 492 MB in  3.01 seconds = 163.69 MB/sec and on my

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

27;t, particularly when looking at sequential vs random access, > combined with disk fragmentation. I know EXT4 is a journaling file system > which is supposed to make fragmentation a non- issue, but I don't know > whether BTRFS is the same. > > That's not the cache that's

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 18/11/24 10:36, Samuel Sieb wrote: Yes, a full cache can cause performance issues, but I would expect to be able to play around with the caching algorithms to control what gets cached and what doesn't, particularly when looking at sequential vs random access, combined with

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

r megabits per second? The bench mark speeds are megabytes per second and the quoted disk performance speeds and the port speed is megabits per second, and looking at the performance I might try hdparm and see what it says for raw reads and cached reads, assuming my hard disk has cache (I haven&

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Tim: > > Because big numbers are a marketing ploy... Sure, there's *something* > > that the SATA port can do at that speed, but it's not continuously > > churn your data through in the way that you'd like. Stephen Morris: > Yes, I understand that but when the device specs specify that the > d

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Stephen Morris composed on 2024-11-18 09:07 (UTC+1100): > For me on my hard disk its giving: > /dev/sdd: > Timing cached reads:   52114 MB in  1.99 seconds = 26165.57 MB/sec > Timing buffered disk reads: 492 MB in  3.01 seconds = 163.69 MB/sec > and on my SSD it is giving: >

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 17/11/24 16:02, Michael D. Setzer II wrote: I've always hdparm -Tt to test drives. hdparm -Tt /dev/sda /dev/sda: Timing cached reads: 10716 MB in 1.99 seconds = 5377.96 MB/sec Timing buffered disk reads: 700 MB in 3.00 seconds = 232.99 MB/sec For me on my hard disk its giving:

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

speeds are megabytes per second and the quoted disk performance speeds and the port speed is megabits per second, and looking at the performance I might try hdparm and see what it says for raw reads and cached reads, assuming my hard disk has cache (I haven't checked that spec yet). I have an issu

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 2024-11-17 14:52, Frank Bures wrote: On 2024-11-17 02:02, Tim via users wrote: And maybe you could get a RAID device which has SATA ports to the PC, so it can spread the load internally across several drives and keep up with a very high data speed.  I've never looked to see if anyone has ac

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 2024-11-17 02:02, Tim via users wrote: And maybe you could get a RAID device which has SATA ports to the PC, so it can spread the load internally across several drives and keep up with a very high data speed. I've never looked to see if anyone has actually done that. Back in the early 00'

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Once upon a time, Stephen Morris said: > If that is the case why does the specs for that device under > performance say it will support speeds of 1Gb/s, 3Gb/s and 6Gb/s. Because that is the speed of the link between the drive and the controller/motherboard. It's possible for an individual sector

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

> On 17 Nov 2024, at 04:45, Stephen Morris wrote: > > If that is the case why does the specs for that device under performance say > it will support speeds of 1Gb/s, 3Gb/s and 6Gb/s. Because that is the spec of the connectors on the motherboard. It provides an upper bound on transfer speed, b

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Chris Adams: > > That's a misunderstanding of how things work. The SATA port speed is > > just an upper-bound on transfer, but has nothing to do with how fast a > > device can actually read data (similar to having a 1G network card and > > even Internet service doesn't mean sites will serve data t

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 17/11/24 11:54, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Stephen Morris said:     To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used the Real World Performance Profile. For its sequential read performance it is showing around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 (3TB Seagate Barracuda

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

On 17 Nov 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Morris wrote: Date sent: Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:44:51 +1100 Subject:Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org From: Stephen Morris Copies to: steve.morris...@gmail.com Send reply to: Community support for Fedora

Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Hi,     To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used the Real World Performance Profile. For its sequential read performance it is showing around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 (3TB Seagate Barracuda), which given that device support 1/3/6 Gb/s I/O speeds and the device is

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Stephen Morris composed on 2024-11-17 11:22 (UTC+1100): >     To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used the > Real World Performance Profile. For its sequential read performance it > is showing around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 (3TB Seagate > Barracu

Re: Fedora F41 Hard Disk Performance

Once upon a time, Stephen Morris said: >     To test my hard disk performance I have run Kdiskmark and used > the Real World Performance Profile. For its sequential read > performance it is showing around 156 MB/s on my ST3000DM007-1WY1 > (3TB Seagate Barracuda), which given that devi

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

Roger Heflin wrote: > I am not sure what version mine last worked on. I would guess the > default changed on 39 or 40. > > What fixed it for me (type plain password from stdin) was adding > --hash ripemd160 (they appear to have changed the default hash, BAD > developer). > > Guessing related to

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

I am not sure what version mine last worked on. I would guess the default changed on 39 or 40. What fixed it for me (type plain password from stdin) was adding --hash ripemd160 (they appear to have changed the default hash, BAD developer). Guessing related to this: https://gitlab.com/cryptsetup/

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 8:03 PM Roger Heflin wrote: > > The encryption defaults changed sometime recently. I don't see the change documented at or . That's unfortunate. > The

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

The encryption defaults changed sometime recently. The defaults cryptsetup command I had in a script stopped mount my encrypted filesystem until I did a bunch of research and found out what parameters needed to be specified to match the prior default. If you want to try what I found out reply an

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

> On 5 Nov 2024, at 23:04, richard emberson wrote: > > So, my question, is it possible to remove the encryption on a disk > in maintenance mode. If one can, then, maybe, I might be able to login > into my media server. I suggest that you boot from a fedora install usb and then

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

Thank you for your suggestions. Keyboard does not look like it is the issue. I also tried to start the fedora rescue selection, but it also required the entry of the LUKS passphrase (Curiously, while a normal release starts with a different gui and stops asking for the passphrase after 4 or 5 at

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:25 -0800, richard emberson wrote: > Early in Maintenance Mode I tested the keyboard and typed in the passphrase, > twice, and it appeared on the screen correctly. Just to be thorough... On the graphical login screen see if there's an icon for choosing keyboard layout/lang

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

I tried to upgrade 3 different machine from 40 to 41. All older that boot with /boot/efi. Two machines were laptops and one machine was a desktop media server. All three failed the same way. The disk decryption mechanism did not work. Same error message generated. If I had to guess, I believe

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

One must enter the encryption passphrase before you get to select what kernel to load. On 11/5/24 3:44 PM, Jonathan Billings wrote: But more importantly, have you tried booting older kernels in GRUB2 on boot? It’s possible (albeit unlikely) that the new kernel was built with broken cryptsetup

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

Early in Maintenance Mode I tested the keyboard and typed in the passphrase, twice, and it appeared on the screen correctly. On 11/5/24 6:17 PM, Tim via users wrote: On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:44 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote: Sometimes it’s a broken keyboard. Oh the fun (not) of trying to log

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

On Tue, 2024-11-05 at 18:44 -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote: > Sometimes it’s a broken keyboard. Oh the fun (not) of trying to login with a crappy laptop keyboard. You can't see what characters are being typed, so you have zero clues about what's going wrong... On older releases I could switch on

Re: Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

On Nov 5, 2024, at 18:04, richard emberson wrote: > > So, my question, is it possible to remove the encryption on a disk > in maintenance mode. If one can, then, maybe, I might be able to login > into my media server. So, if I’m reading this right, you updated to Fedora 41 and n

Remove disk encryption in Maintenance Mode

, upon reboot, the luks encryption password failed to work with message: Warning: /dev/disk/by-uuid/d0696 does not exist Generating "/run/initramfs/rdsosreport.txt" Entering emergency mode. Exit shell to continue. Type "journalctl" to view system logs. Yo

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 3:41 PM Roger Heflin wrote: > > I have personally done g1(3.5" scsi) -> g5(2.5" sas) (initrd rebuild > to use the correct drivers + dd to clone onto a SAN disk, boot up new > machine on livecd and dd back to the local disk). > > And done man

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 2:02 PM George N. White III wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 8:07 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware >> RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to >> migrate to ne

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 11:23 AM Michael D. Setzer II wrote: > > On 27 Sep 2024 at 19:05, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > From: Jeffrey Walton > Date sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 19:05:31 -0400 > Subject:Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 8:57 AM Barry Scott wrote: > > On 28 Sep 2024, at 00:05, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > Does anyone have experience with a migration like this? If so, can you > provide feedback? > > I have always considered it better to make a new install on new hardware. > Then I config the s

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Sat, Sep 28, 2024 at 1:42 AM Peter Boy wrote: > > > Am 28.09.2024 um 01:05 schrieb Jeffrey Walton : > > > > I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware > > RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to > > migrate to newer hardware with a single SSD

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

> Am 28.09.2024 um 20:02 schrieb George N. White III : > > > Legacy filesystems may not be the best option for an SSD -- a fresh > install using btrfs may be beneficial. > Fedora Server Edition uses LVM/XFS for a reason. And that’s not a „legacy“ filesystem. A buzz word and some marketing sp

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

I have personally done g1(3.5" scsi) -> g5(2.5" sas) (initrd rebuild to use the correct drivers + dd to clone onto a SAN disk, boot up new machine on livecd and dd back to the local disk). And done many g5/g6/g7/g8/g9/g10 to various different models (generally dd/clone to san di

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Fri, Sep 27, 2024 at 8:07 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware > RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to > migrate to newer hardware with a single SSD. Both machines are x86_64. > Legacy fil

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On 27 Sep 2024 at 19:05, Jeffrey Walton wrote: From: Jeffrey Walton Date sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2024 19:05:31 -0400 Subject:Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org Send reply

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

> On 28 Sep 2024, at 00:05, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > Does anyone have experience with a migration like this? If so, can you > provide feedback? I have always considered it better to make a new install on new hardware. Then I config the services and backup and restore the data. This way you g

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

> Am 28.09.2024 um 01:05 schrieb Jeffrey Walton : > > Hi Everyone, > > I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware > RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to > migrate to newer hardware with a single SSD. Both machines are x86_64. > > I've bee

Re: Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 19:05 -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware > RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to > migrate to newer hardware with a single SSD. Both machines are x86_64. > > ... > > I am planning o

Move Fedora Server to new machine, RAID1 -> Single disk

Hi Everyone, I have a Fedora Server running F40 on an old Proliant G5 with hardware RAID1. The machine is giving too much trouble so I would like to migrate to newer hardware with a single SSD. Both machines are x86_64. I've been researching methods to perform the migration, but I am not clear on

livecd-iso-to-disk with data-persistence

Hi folks, on a Fedora 40 XFCE I'm running livecd-iso-to-disk to create a bootable stick with persistent home and persistent overlay. In the direcotry where I downloaded Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-40-1.14.iso I run the following command:     sudo livecd-iso-to-disk --efi --format --rese

Re: remove a disk from raid1 array

You need to add this to the grub kernel boot line: bootdegraded=true otherwise the default behavior is to freak out and not work. On Wed, Jul 3, 2024 at 5:17 AM François Patte wrote: > > Bonjour, > > I need to remove a disk from a raid1 array and restart the computer > *without

remove a disk from raid1 array

Bonjour, I need to remove a disk from a raid1 array and restart the computer *without* that disk and without any other disk Up to now, if I stop the computer, unplug the disk and restart, the computer does not start complaining that it has not find all the disks. Do I have to remove

Re: BTRFS disk arrangement on new build. Cockpit says home var and root not mounted

nstalling > cockpit, and checking Storage, i noticed some warnings about the disks. It > claims that /root, /home and /var are not mounted. I think they are. I just > wonder if I am doing something wrong or weird here and I'd appreciate a > second look. > > Here is my fdisk > ro

BTRFS disk arrangement on new build. Cockpit says home var and root not mounted

x27;d appreciate a second look. Here is my fdisk root@pepewin2:~# fdisk -l Disk /dev/sda: 232.89 GiB, 250059350016 bytes, 488397168 sectors Disk model: CT250MX500SSD1 Units: sectors of 1 * 512 = 512 bytes Sector size (logical/physical): 512 bytes / 4096 bytes I/O size (minimum/optimal): 4096 bytes / 4096

Fedore CoreOS and secondary disk

Good day, all, I have been trying to add a second disk to CoreOS and can't seem to figure this out. The secondary disk is specified in the butane config but the part that I need guidance with is how do I bring up the server with two disks. Sample disk config from butane

Re: errors logged after USB disk ejected

On Sat, 2024-01-06 at 00:39 +1100, fed...@eyal.emu.id.au wrote: > This happens whenever I connect and mount a USB disk > $ sudo mount /dev/sdi1 /sata > Then when I am finished with it, I do > $ sudo umount /sata > and then > $ sudo eject /dev/sdi > At this

errors logged after USB disk ejected

This happens whenever I connect and mount a USB disk $ sudo mount /dev/sdi1 /sata Then when I am finished with it, I do $ sudo umount /sata and then $ sudo eject /dev/sdi At this point the system log shows the below burst of errors (the disk is still plugged in

Re: Is this possible?: Convert /dev/sdd[1-5] Ext4 => /dev/sdd [btrfs - whole disk] - without losing data in sdd5 (old /home)

parts 1-4, replace them with a new btrfs partition and then maybe somehow use btrfs-convert to integrate the remaining ext4 part 5 into the new part 1? . . but what I really want to do is create a new btrfs using the _whole_ of the disk - but somehow avoid having to spend a LONG time copying back

Re: Is this possible?: Convert /dev/sdd[1-5] Ext4 => /dev/sdd [btrfs - whole disk] - without losing data in sdd5 (old /home)

inse and repeat. We found that drive failure rates increased around end-of-warranty, so I worry about intensive disk activity on older drives pushing them to failure. > . . but what I > really want to do is create a new btrfs using the _whole_ of the disk - > but somehow avoid having to

Is this possible?: Convert /dev/sdd[1-5] Ext4 => /dev/sdd [btrfs - whole disk] - without losing data in sdd5 (old /home)

use btrfs-convert to integrate the remaining ext4 part 5 into the new part 1? . . but what I really want to do is create a new btrfs using the _whole_ of the disk - but somehow avoid having to spend a LONG time copying back about 4TB (to the 8TB drive) - the only way I could see that possibility

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Wed, Nov 8, 2023 at 1:15 PM Michael Hennebry wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, Michael Hennebry wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Paul Smith wrote: > > > >> # df -h > >> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > >> devtmpfs 4.0M

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2023, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Paul Smith wrote: # df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev tmpfs 16G 194M 16G 2%

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023, Paul Smith wrote: # df -h Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev tmpfs 16G 194M 16G 2% /dev/shm tmpfs

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 7:19 PM Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > > Thanks, Peter: > > > > > > # df -h > > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > > devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev > > > tmpfs

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 12:48 PM Jonathan Billings wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2023, at 12:06, Paul Smith wrote: > > > > Thanks, Peter: > > > > # df -h > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev > >

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 11:53 AM Paul Smith wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:46 PM Paul Smith wrote: > > > > While running > > > > dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 > > > > to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: > > > >

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> Thanks to all who have answered. The command > > dnf autoremove > > did the trick. (I am sending this message from F39.) > for further reading: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/ ___ users mailing list -- user

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 5:48 PM Jonathan Billings wrote: > > > Thanks, Peter: > > > > # df -h > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > > devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev > > tmpfs 16G 194M

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Nov 7, 2023, at 12:06, Paul Smith wrote: > > Thanks, Peter: > > # df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > devtmpfs 4.0M 0 4.0M 0% /dev > tmpfs 16G 194M 16G 2% /dev/shm

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> > # df -h > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on ... > /dev/mapper/fedora_localhost--live-root 69G 68G 0 100% / ... > /dev/mapper/fedora_localhost--live-home 794G 397G 357G 53% /home comparing sizes/disk layout: care to do a n

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> Am 07.11.2023 um 17:59 schrieb Paul Smith : > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:57 PM Peter Boy wrote: >> >>>> >>>> While running >>>> >>>> dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 >>>> >>>> to upgr

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

Paul Smith composed on 2023-11-07 16:46 (UTC): > While running > > dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 > > to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: > > Error Summary - > Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesyste

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:46 PM Paul Smith > Maybe I can delete something from the following, to free up space? > better to de-install the elder kernels via 1. uname -a => get's the kernel you're currently running 2. rpm -q kernel-core => all installed kernels included the one you're runni

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> > Could you please help me? please run sudo dnf autoremove it will/should clean old outdated installed packages and then provide the output of following commands: 1. df -h|grep -v tmpfs 2. du -sch /var/log/journal ___ users mailing list --

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:57 PM Peter Boy wrote: > > >> > >> While running > >> > >> dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 > >> > >> to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: > >> > >> Error Summary

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

> Am 07.11.2023 um 17:52 schrieb Paul Smith : > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:46 PM Paul Smith wrote: >> >> While running >> >> dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 >> >> to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: >> >> Error

Re: Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

On Tue, Nov 7, 2023 at 4:46 PM Paul Smith wrote: > > While running > > dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 > > to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: > > Error Summary - > Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / files

Upgrade to F39: Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem.

Dear All, While running dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=39 to upgrade Fedora, I get the following error: Error Summary - Disk Requirements: At least 5633 MB more space needed on the / filesystem. Could you please help me? Thanks in advance, Paul

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

B >> > https://www.storagereview.com/review/crucial-mx100-ssd-review >> > <https://www.storagereview.com/review/crucial-mx100-ssd-review> >> > Looks like I have used up about 16% of its Endurance. >> >> But this is entirely irrelevant to the orig

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

tirely irrelevant to the original question. It has > nothing to do with your SSD. efivars isn't on a disk as was explained. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to u

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

I have used up about 16% of its Endurance. But this is entirely irrelevant to the original question. It has nothing to do with your SSD. efivars isn't on a disk as was explained. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscr

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

Hi. I could not find the specs back in the crucial web page. But from a review site I could find a figure, 72TB https://www.storagereview.com/review/crucial-mx100-ssd-review Looks like I have used up about 16% of its Endurance. On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 3:42 PM Barry wrote: > > > On 4 Nov 2023, at

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 22:50, Javier Perez wrote: > > 246 Total_LBAs_Written 0x0032 100 100 000Old_age Always > - 23588083829 From that counter you can calculate the total number of bytes written. If you know the drive spec for endurance total bytes written before th

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

On Sat, Nov 4, 2023 at 8:11 PM Barry wrote: > > > > On 4 Nov 2023, at 22:50, Javier Perez wrote: > > > > Cockpit is showing me an error of /sys/firmware/efi/efivars 0 free > > I believe that this is referring to the NVRAM on the motherboard not the > boot disk.

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

Hi. Thanks for the analysis. Indeed yes, this pc is practically always on. I like the RAID 1 idea, if one disk goes down I won't be caught up rebuilding from scratch even if it is just the OS. The Data is in a different disk. JP On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 4:37 AM Roberto Ragusa wrote: >

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

ere have been bugs in how > it is reported. In particular, the SMART threshold is 0 and the current > value is 97, which, in SMART world means that 97 has to go down to 0 > to indicate a problem. So maybe the disk has spent 3% of its life, not 97% > (100 rewrites are nothing, SLC are typ

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

ameter too much, there have been bugs in how it is reported. In particular, the SMART threshold is 0 and the current value is 97, which, in SMART world means that 97 has to go down to 0 to indicate a problem. So maybe the disk has spent 3% of its life, not 97% (100 rewrites are nothing, SLC are typicall

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

> On 4 Nov 2023, at 22:50, Javier Perez wrote: > > Cockpit is showing me an error of /sys/firmware/efi/efivars 0 free I believe that this is referring to the NVRAM on the motherboard not the boot disk. I had this happen to one of my machines and the fix was to reset the efivar’

Re: Time to replace SSD disk?

On 11/04/2023 04:48 PM, Javier Perez wrote: Hi. My boot SSD was purchased on May, 2015. It is a Crucial 128GB one. Cockpit is showing me an error of /sys/firmware/efi/efivars 0 free This may be redundant, but before you start, make a complete backup of that disk on removable media. Running

Time to replace SSD disk?

): After scanning selected spans, do NOT read-scan remainder of disk. If Selective self-test is pending on power-up, resume after 0 minute delay. The above only provides legacy SMART information - try 'smartctl END OF SMARTCTL Is it time to say good by and replace this disk? Sho

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

Michael Hennebry wrote: >> I tried and failed to boot the .iso image >> from a partition on the hard drive. Samuel Sieb: > I would not expect that to work. What method would you use? People used to do that, it was a kind of loopmount. Though, as I recall, it may have been mounting an ISO file c

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

On Oct 8, 2023, at 19:28, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > As a file. But you still need to boot the installer from somewhere. I’ve extracted the kernel and initrd from the ISO and used them with the existing system’s bootloader. (I have an automated system at work for reloading a system, it uses a kic

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

On 10/8/23 16:25, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Oct 8, 2023, at 18:51, Mike Wright wrote: On 10/8/23 11:10, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Roger Heflin wrote: On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 10:19?AM Michael Hennebry wrote: What is a livecd to hard disk type install? There is usually

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

On Oct 8, 2023, at 18:51, Mike Wright wrote: > > On 10/8/23 11:10, Michael Hennebry wrote: >>> On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Roger Heflin wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 10:19?AM Michael Hennebry >>> wrote: >>>> What is a livecd to hard disk type install?

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

On 10/8/23 11:10, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Roger Heflin wrote: On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 10:19?AM Michael Hennebry wrote: What is a livecd to hard disk type install? There is usually an install-to-hard-disk icon someplace on the livecd desktop. That is what I did

Re: F38 installer claims it cannot find a hard disk

On 10/8/23 11:10, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Roger Heflin wrote: On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 10:19?AM Michael Hennebry wrote: What is a livecd to hard disk type install? There is usually an install-to-hard-disk icon someplace on the livecd desktop. That is what I did

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >