| To: | linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM |
| From: | Jure Pecar <pegasus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:54:14 +0200 |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204230929590.4155-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Organization: | Select Technology |
| References: | <20510000.1019570836@camillo> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204230929590.4155-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:31:58 -0500 (CDT) "Eric Sandeen" <sandeen@xxxxxxx> wrote: > There have been various problems with XFS + LVM, but we've gotten > them ironed out as they are discovered. I would suggest using > the latest LVM (1.0.3) with XFS; previous versions caused stack > overflows when used with XFS. > > OTOH, if you've had good luck with LVM 1.0.1-rc4 in the past, it > would probably be no worse with XFS 1.1. > > -Eric Has anyone tried it with IBM's evms? -- Jure Pecar |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | xfsdump query, Ian Cumming |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Stephen Lord |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Stephen Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |