| To: | "Venables, Michael" <Michael.Venables@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS install from ISO fails utterly |
| From: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 09 May 2001 11:15:31 -0500 |
| Cc: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | Message from "Venables, Michael" <Michael.Venables@xxxxxxxxxx> of "Tue, 08 May 2001 17:48:00 CDT." <8C91B010B3B7994C88A266E1A72184D3C88CF1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> > the mount points were as follows: > > / 256MB XFS > /boot 64 ext2 (also tried as XFS) > /var 512 XFS > /tmp 512 XFS > /usr 4GB XFS > /home 20GB XFS > > swap 256MB > > There is one other possibility, that due to the way xfs returns st_blksize as 64K by default, you actually filled the root or var partition during install, could you look in the install log for signs of this. We have found that some files managed by rpm and email systems are tending to get much larger than normal. If this was the case then just bumping partition sizes would be a way out for now. I did have this very thing happen to me when installing the Ximian gnome packages on my laptop. I am looking into making the default behavior closer to ext2 in this area. Steve |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS on md (RAID1) with devfs fixed, Simon Matter |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS on md (RAID1) with devfs fixed, Russell Cattelan |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: XFS install from ISO fails utterly, Venables, Michael |
| Next by Thread: | RE: XFS install from ISO fails utterly, Venables, Michael |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |