[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Debian XFS boot image at markybob.com

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Debian XFS boot image at markybob.com
From: George Georgalis <georgw@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:51:31 -0500
In-reply-to: <20021209205241.GC10532@plato.local.lan>
References: <news2mail-slrnav67u7.n7j.gurubert-dated-1039343472.lheeicjo@raman.epigenomics.epi> <3DF33E8D.2090201@2p.pl> <20021209154141.GB15645@trot.local> <20021209205241.GC10532@plato.local.lan>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:52:41AM -0900, Ethan Benson wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:41:41AM -0500, George Georgalis wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 01:43:57PM +0100, Wojtek Aleksander wrote:
>> >Robert Sander wrote:
>> >>http://www.markybob.com/xfsboot/ is currently unreachable (name does not
>> >>resolve). Does anybody have any details about that?
>> >>
>> >>It's linked from the downloads section on the XFS page.
>> >
>> >Depending on what you want to do, you may want to try some other images 
>> >or the Knoppix CD (this is full distibution which supports XFS and is 
>> >based on Debian). For Debian install I succesfully used this image:
>> >http://people.debian.org/~blade/XFS-Install/download/
>> I did some resesearch and found blade's images the best for a debian xfs
>> woody install.
>> There are a couple problems with them though (didn't try the cdrom, only
>> the floppies):
>> - you must make/use all 5 driver floppies even if you don't need extra
>> drivers, I'm kinda new to debian, maybe I missed something...
>> - the kernel is optimized for install bootstraping, recompile one for
>> regular use, I think blade's uses udma 33, but there might have been
>> other slow down factors.
>> - the rescue image does not have xfsrestore or any xfsprogs on it.
>> It would be good to note also that in the xfsprogs deb package
>> /usr/sbin/xfsrestore is a symlink to /sbin/xfsrestore ...so if you hose
>> your root partition with grub you can't use it. ;^)
>ext2 dump/restore are also in /sbin as they should be.  the idea is
>keep your / small and contained, then you can restore /usr and other
>large filesystems.  screwing over / usually means your hosed anyway.

yes, accept in this case it looks as if /sbin/xfsrestore would have
fixed my / quickly and easily, however it was easier to rebuild the os
than to get xfsrestore on a running xfs compatible rescue image.

In retrospect, I think it makes good sense to keep fs repair tools
on both /sbin and /usr/sbin no need to link -s /usr/sbin/xfsrestore
/sbin/xfsrestore when cp can save your arse.

// George

GEORGE GEORGALIS, System Admin/Architect    cell: 347-451-8229 
Security Services, Web, Mail,            mailto:george@xxxxxxxxx 
Multimedia, DB, DNS and Metrics.       http://www.galis.org/george 

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