Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM

To:	Jure Pecar <pegasus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM
From:	Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:16:21 -0500
Cc:	linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References:	<20510000.1019570836@camillo> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204230929590.4155-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020423165414.202b89e2.pegasus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011226

Jure Pecar wrote:

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

We had some ioctl problem reports from mkfs which should now be fixed in
EVMS 1.0. Someone else reported it was working. I have not tried myself.

Steve

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
XFS 1.1 and LVM, Roberto Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Eric Sandeen Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Jure Pecar Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Stephen Lord <= XFS and EVMS - Limited Success, Karl M. Hegbloom Re: XFS and EVMS - Limited Success, Eric Sandeen Re: XFS and EVMS - Limited Success, Oliver Jehle Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Adrian Head Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Kelly Corbin

Previous by Date:	Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Jure Pecar
Next by Date:	Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Adrian Head
Previous by Thread:	Re: XFS 1.1 and LVM, Jure Pecar
Next by Thread:	XFS and EVMS - Limited Success, Karl M. Hegbloom
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]