xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs locking -- stack dump

To: Luben Tuikov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: xfs locking -- stack dump
From: christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:26:22 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3DB94A0A.6DF8D5CA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3DB92CAF.775874FA@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <20021025131946.GB16970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <3DB94A0A.6DF8D5CA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 09:41:30AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > just curios, why are using lvm-1.1rc2?
> > 
> > I thought the 1.1 series are very buggy and abandoned?
> > I've read this some time ago on the lvm Homepage but for now I can't find
> > that article again...
> 
> Which one should I use? The default with the kernel (2.4.19)
> or lvm-2.1.95.10 or lvm-2.0-{latest or beta}?
> 
>

 
hmmm, personally I can't say anything about lvm2(any version) cause I've
never had tried it. I don't use lvm  heavily, so ....   
Maybe a good starting point would be the 1.0.5 release (the source code
provides some advice how to create a patch against your kernel, as lvm
in 2.4.19 is version 1.0.3).
I'll try to find that article I talked about in my previous mail.

We're using lvm-1.0.4 userland tools (debian package) and pure CVS XFS
kernels.

Maybe evms would be a look worth, too, but I've also have no experiences
with it.

Some insights by others are very welcome!

Christian


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>