Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+AMD64\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+AMD64\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:46:37 +0200; 32-bit dmapi userspace also won't work with a 64-bit kernel, it's not designed to do. -- Andreas.; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00092.html (7,327 bytes)
2. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 09:46:37 +0200; 32-bit dmapi userspace also won't work with a 64-bit kernel, it's not designed to do. -- Andreas.; /archives/xfs/2005-10/msg00233.html (7,327 bytes)
3. XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:55:36 -0800; I am looking into building a high end multi-user host system, and as such it will require a great deal of memory (2-4+ GB). I would prefer to use a 64 bit architecture to avoid the pitfalls of 32bit+; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00028.html (8,780 bytes)
4. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: evilninja <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:59:17 +0200; Ethan Benson schrieb: i'm running 64bit kernel+userland with a few 32bit-binary-only apps on an XFS rootfs. no difficulties so far. if you really can't get a 32bit-binary to run, you can set up a 32b; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00032.html (8,339 bytes)
5. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: 10 Aug 2005 15:23:32 +0200; There is a problem when a unclean log from the 32bit kernel is replayed on the 64bit kernel (or the other way round). Just make sure you always have clean unmounts when you switch between 32bit and 6; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00046.html (8,101 bytes)
6. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: evilninja <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:57:30 +0200; Andi Kleen schrieb: hm, but how is the OP supposed to get his fs checked? as i understand it he has successfully run a 8TB xfs in 32bit. now it's somehow corrupt and the log was not replayed yet. but; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00049.html (8,256 bytes)
7. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:10:55 +1000; I don't think was the question the OP asked. It was a 32bit userspace/64bit kernel interop question. Different thread. Please keep in mind that log replay is completely separate to repairing the file; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00050.html (9,379 bytes)
8. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:50:05 -0800; that shouldn't be a problem, I am not going to be flipping back and forth between kernels. so is 32 bit userspace xfsutils kosher with a 64 bit xfs kernel? or are there silly ioctl() issues? Thanks -; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00054.html (9,132 bytes)
9. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: "Christian" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:21:51 +0200 (CEST); erm, yes :-\ i mixed it up and it was more a "what if.." question. "what if i have 8TB of corrupt xfs data on a 32bit system". but you've answered it below. ah, that i did not know. ok, i think i got; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00055.html (8,869 bytes)
10. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:46:10 +1000; See debian bug 257265. Looks like silly ioctl issues were reported for sparc64 (64bit kernel, 32bit userspace) about a year ago and a fix was put into the 2.6.8-1 kernel package. http://bugs.debian.o; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00058.html (8,432 bytes)
11. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:23:44 +0100; That's just for growfs. We have compatibility shims for some ioctls, but the complicated ones (all the handle stuff, bulkstat) doesn't work and can't be easily made to work.; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00060.html (9,026 bytes)
12. XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 18:55:36 -0800; I am looking into building a high end multi-user host system, and as such it will require a great deal of memory (2-4+ GB). I would prefer to use a 64 bit architecture to avoid the pitfalls of 32bit+; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00201.html (8,780 bytes)
13. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxxx; Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:59:17 +0200; Ethan Benson schrieb: i'm running 64bit kernel+userland with a few 32bit-binary-only apps on an XFS rootfs. no difficulties so far. if you really can't get a 32bit-binary to run, you can set up a 32b; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00205.html (8,339 bytes)
14. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: 10 Aug 2005 15:23:32 +0200; There is a problem when a unclean log from the 32bit kernel is replayed on the 64bit kernel (or the other way round). Just make sure you always have clean unmounts when you switch between 32bit and 6; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00219.html (8,101 bytes)
15. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:57:30 +0200; Andi Kleen schrieb: hm, but how is the OP supposed to get his fs checked? as i understand it he has successfully run a 8TB xfs in 32bit. now it's somehow corrupt and the log was not replayed yet. but; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00222.html (8,256 bytes)
16. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:10:55 +1000; I don't think was the question the OP asked. It was a 32bit userspace/64bit kernel interop question. Different thread. Please keep in mind that log replay is completely separate to repairing the file; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00223.html (9,379 bytes)
17. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: cott); Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 20:50:05 -0800; that shouldn't be a problem, I am not going to be flipping back and forth between kernels. so is 32 bit userspace xfsutils kosher with a 64 bit xfs kernel? or are there silly ioctl() issues? Thanks -; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00227.html (9,132 bytes)
18. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:21:51 +0200 (CEST); erm, yes :-\ i mixed it up and it was more a "what if.." question. "what if i have 8TB of corrupt xfs data on a 32bit system". but you've answered it below. ah, that i did not know. ok, i think i got; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00228.html (8,869 bytes)
19. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:46:10 +1000; See debian bug 257265. Looks like silly ioctl issues were reported for sparc64 (64bit kernel, 32bit userspace) about a year ago and a fix was put into the 2.6.8-1 kernel package. http://bugs.debian.o; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00231.html (8,432 bytes)
20. Re: XFS and AMD64 (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 08:23:44 +0100; That's just for growfs. We have compatibility shims for some ioctls, but the complicated ones (all the handle stuff, bulkstat) doesn't work and can't be easily made to work.; /archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00233.html (9,026 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]