[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>