xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS on RHES 3

To: Sean Dogar <sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS on RHES 3
From: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:39:13 -0500 (EST)
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <424C6A3D.1070008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <424C6879.2060807@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0503311619010.20619@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <424C6A3D.1070008@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Sean Dogar wrote:
> Net Llama! wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Sean Dogar wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I'm trying to get XFS support going on an ES 3 machine (it's actually
> >>White Box Enterprise Linux, but the kernel source is the same).  There
> >>is no way to enable XFS support on the provided source and recompile
> >>since the kernel revision is 2.4.21 (XFS not yet in the kernel).  I
> >>tried patching it with the 1.3.1 patches downloaded from SGI but there
> >>are apparently enough differences between Red Hat's kernel and vanilla
> >>to make the patch fail.
> >>
> >>I tried grabbing 2.4.29-vanilla, compiling, and running with that
> >>kernel, but I quickly found out that the libs or other userland programs
> >>in ES 3 must be dependent on some of the 2.6 kernel features that they
> >>backported (I kept having programs go out to lunch or die; attaching an
> >>strace showed that they were making kernel calls for things that weren't
> >>there).
> >>
> >>Does anybody have XFS RPM's for 2.4.21-15smp or a newer RHES kernel?
> >>I'd love to just be able to grab a precompiled module, drop it into
> >>/lib/modules, and modprobe it.
> >>
> >>The only other option I see here is to try an upgrade to 2.6, which, if
> >>experience is an indicator, could break things in the userland (assuming
> >>I can get it to build).  It would require an upgrade to module-utils,
> >>which I'm not sure will leave my currently working kernel in a usable
> >>state.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm successfully running 2.6.x on RHES3 without any noticable problems.
> >XFS works great.
> >
> >Sorry, i can 't help with playing the kernel SRPM dance.  Redhat makes it
> >sufficiently hard that its much faster easier to just use vanilla 2.6.x.
> >
> >
> >
> Did you have to do anything other than upgrading the module-utils?  Did
> it break the 2.4 kernel?

I didn't even bother with modutils, i just went with a monolithic kernel.
I was looking for the path of least resistence.  So 2.4.x kernels
continued to run fine, not that they could get very far since there was no
XFS support in them.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lonni J Friedman                        netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
LlamaLand                               http://netllama.linux-sxs.org


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