Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RHEL\s+ES\s+4\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*RHEL\s+ES\s+4\s*$/: 40 ]

Total 40 documents matching your query.

1. RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: rthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 20:11:54 -0600 (CST); Hi everyone, I am attempting to use XFS on a number of RHEL ES 4 servers. I need help. I have downloaded the patch, installed the xfsprogs and was able to use mkfs.xfs to format a partition. When try; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00080.html (7,897 bytes)
2. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: "evilninja@xxxxxxx" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 04:34:01 +0100; rthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb: Hi everyone, I am attempting to use XFS on a number of RHEL ES 4 servers. I need help. I have downloaded the patch, installed the xfsprogs and was able to use m; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00081.html (9,123 bytes)
3. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: David Lloyd <lloy0076@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 14:47:15 +1030; Does anyone know if the selinux stuff on RHEL 4 supports XFS presuming one has the correctly patched kernel? DSL; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00082.html (7,906 bytes)
4. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:23:13 +0000; If that's really «TB», the total is between 2^47B and 2^49B. Creating a storage system capable of handling that is going to cost (optimistically) a few million dollars: a cheap bare drive of roughly; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00083.html (9,602 bytes)
5. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:40:05 -0600; rthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi everyone, I am attempting to use XFS on a number of RHEL ES 4 servers. I need help. I have downloaded the patch, installed the xfsprogs and was able to use mkf; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00084.html (9,377 bytes)
6. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Rob Thompson <rthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:07:11 -0600; This is in fact a 120 TB (not GB) filesystem that I am trying to build. What I am attempting to do is to take 80 1.6 TB arrays ((8 x 250 GB Raid 5 arrays) 10 arrays from 8 seperate SAN's). Use LVM to; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00086.html (10,228 bytes)
7. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:14:37 -0600; Rob Thompson wrote: This is in fact a 120 TB (not GB) filesystem that I am trying to build. What I am attempting to do is to take 80 1.6 TB arrays ((8 x 250 GB Raid 5 arrays) 10 arrays from 8 seperat; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00087.html (9,819 bytes)
8. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Rob Thompson <rthompson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:23:13 -0600; Thanks for the advice. I am running the 64-bit kernel: uname -a 2.6.9-22.ELsmp #1 SMP x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Thanks, Rob; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00088.html (10,305 bytes)
9. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: "evilninja@xxxxxxx" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:05:44 +0100; Rob Thompson schrieb: This is in fact a 120 TB (not GB) filesystem that I am trying to build. i recall an issue, where one was in need to xfs_check/xfs_repair a big xfs volume and did not have enough; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00091.html (9,572 bytes)
10. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:34:31 -0600; evilninja@xxxxxxx wrote: Rob Thompson schrieb: This is in fact a 120 TB (not GB) filesystem that I am trying to build. i recall an issue, where one was in need to xfs_check/xfs_repair a big xfs volum; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00093.html (10,049 bytes)
11. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: "evilninja@xxxxxxx" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:45:50 +0100; Eric Sandeen schrieb: Oh, repair on a 300T filesystem -wil-l be painful anywhere, I think, unfortunately. hm, painful yes, but hopefully not impossible? otherwise if sth. goes wrong on a 300TB fs the; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00094.html (9,531 bytes)
12. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:46:15 +0000; [ ... ] It sounds easy :-), but both the idea and this configuration of a single fs of that size as you describe above to me feel rather extraordinarily ''optimistic'', to use a euphemism. Again, th; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00095.html (8,885 bytes)
13. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:13:46 +0000; I suspect that Eric above is trying to be an master of the understatement.... As an amusing mental exercise, consider this: how to make such a backup of a 300TB filesystem? Overall I would guess tha; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00096.html (9,816 bytes)
14. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: "evilninja@xxxxxxx" <evilninja@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 18:40:49 +0100; Peter Grandi schrieb: As an amusing mental exercise, consider this: how to make such a backup of a 300TB filesystem? hehe, tricky indeed. Overall I would guess that designing a 2^48B filesystem is a; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00097.html (10,023 bytes)
15. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:50:32 -0500 (EST); Yea, but then you have to use Solaris. :P -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00098.html (9,791 bytes)
16. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:10:19 -0600; evilninja@xxxxxxx wrote: Eric Sandeen schrieb: Oh, repair on a 300T filesystem -wil-l be painful anywhere, I think, unfortunately. hm, painful yes, but hopefully not impossible? otherwise if sth. goe; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00099.html (9,781 bytes)
17. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:35:30 -0800 (PST); Not necessarily. The license may be compatible with some of the BSD kernels. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | mi; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00100.html (8,780 bytes)
18. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: Jon Lewis <jlewis@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:16:51 -0500 (EST); On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Eric Sandeen wrote: i recall an issue, where one was in need to xfs_check/xfs_repair a big xfs volume and did not have enough memory. with sizes like yours i'd run xfs_check & fr; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00101.html (9,517 bytes)
19. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:19:03 +0000; [ ... ] As a handy pointer I summarized the issue a bit, with links to past discussions, in a recent posting, Nov. 10th.: http://OSS.SGI.com/archives/linux-xfs/2005-11/msg00051.html BTW, I was scann; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00102.html (10,489 bytes)
20. Re: RHEL ES 4 (score: 1): Author: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:26:45 +0000; [ ... the legendary :-) 120-300TB filesystem ... ] It is a ''where angels fear to tread'' situation. :-) However, whether one decides to store 300TB as a single fs or rather some less ''optimistic''; /archives/xfs/2005-11/msg00103.html (9,618 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]