xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large

To: stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large
From: Ingo Jürgensmann <ij@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 21:51:44 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4FE76A50.2010902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <D3F781FA-CEB0-4896-9441-772A9E533354@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120623234445.GZ19223@dastard> <4FE67970.2030008@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4FE710B7.5010704@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4954261F-D4FB-4589-BE18-2BFCEC05E9B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4FE76A50.2010902@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Am 24.06.2012 um 21:28 schrieb Stan Hoeppner:

> Thus, I'd guess that the metadata format changed from 0.90 to 1.2 with a
> very recent release of mdadm.  Are you using distro supplied mdadm, a
> backported more recent mdadm, or did you build mdadm from the most
> recent source?

As I already wrote, I'm using Debian unstable, therefore distro supplied mdadm. 
Otherwise I'd have said this. 

> If either of the latter two, don't you think it would have been wise to
> inform us that "hay, I'm using the bleeding edge mdadm just released"?
> Or if you're using a brand new distro release?

I don't think that Debian unstable is bleeding edge. 

I find it strange that you've misinterpreted citing the mdadm man page as 
"sandbagging us". =:-O

-- 
Ciao...            //      Fon: 0381-2744150
      Ingo       \X/       http://blog.windfluechter.net


gpg pubkey:  http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc

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