| 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
|
| Previous by Date: | Re: mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large, Stan Hoeppner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Loan Offer, springerfinancefirm . 876 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large, Stan Hoeppner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: mkfs.xfs states log stripe unit is too large, Stan Hoeppner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |