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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+as\s+Root\s+filesystem\s*$/: 76 ]

Total 76 documents matching your query.

1. XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Tan Pong Heng <pongheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 19:33:30 +0800; Hi, I did some more testings with using XFS as root filesystem. By inserting some printk into the kernel, I was able to ascertain that the kernel hanged at the last stage of the booting process. It s; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00021.html (7,548 bytes)
2. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 08:59:35 -0500; The root filesystem is mounted by mount_root in fs/super.c there is a loop which walks through calling read_super for different filesystem types. This is probably the place to add printks. Steve; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00026.html (8,328 bytes)
3. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Tan Pong Heng" <pongheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:00:23 +0800; Already done that, that is why I am certain that the hang occur after the mount. The last place I checked was in main.c which was trying to do "exec(init...)" it never reach the printk after all the; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00048.html (9,264 bytes)
4. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Klaus Strebel <stb@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:22:02 +0200; Hi all, the issue might be, that xfs has big problems, being mounted ro on boot. This is the same behaviour as on IRIX (i have a Origin 200 with IRIX 6.4 on dksc(0,1,0) and IRIX 6.5 on dksc(0,2,0)).; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00087.html (9,471 bytes)
5. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Tan Pong Heng" <pongheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 20:29:57 +0800; I sync with the latest CVS this morning and the boot process when further. It definitely does not like to mount read-only. As it can not be remounted as read-write at the moment. This will break the; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00088.html (11,253 bytes)
6. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Jim Mostek <mostek@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 07:48:21 -0500 (CDT); . . . . It would be pretty simple to have a new flag that let recovery run for a read-only mount. Recovery checks to see if the head/tail are == and then allows the read-only mount. If you look at t; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00089.html (10,949 bytes)
7. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:30:50 +0100; All journaling filesystems need recovery. It _can_ be possible to build the appropriate recovery bits in memory if you have a readonly boot, but most filesystems I'm aware of would want write access; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00090.html (10,964 bytes)
8. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:40:37 -0500; Just to report on where XFS is in all of this, it will fail a read only mount request if it determines recovery needs to be run. We do have a norecovery mount option - but this is really for interna; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00091.html (11,701 bytes)
9. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 10:49:36 -0500; In theory devices/fifos etc should work - but I am not surprised if we have problems. We need to narrow down exactly what is not working. If you set your default run level to something which does no; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00092.html (10,013 bytes)
10. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Lyle Seaman <lws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:11:44 -0400; How does a readonly filesystem become inconsistent? (esp: "how does ext3 on readonly media" become inconsistent?) The obvious answer is "well, it *wasn't* readonly when it became inconsistent". If t; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00099.html (10,081 bytes)
11. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:23:15 -0500; Should XFS (or another logging filesystem) detect that it needs to reply the log then you really do not know what state the disk is in. XFS first writes meta-data to the log, and when it knows this; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00100.html (11,426 bytes)
12. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Jim Mostek <mostek@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:28:19 -0500 (CDT); Hey Lyle, long time no read your typed words! Good to see your around. Anyway, you are right that the way the file system gets into a state where it needs to have recovery run is that it was mounted; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00101.html (11,449 bytes)
13. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Tan Pong Heng <pongheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:48:35 +0800; I suspect the problem is related to the handling of sockets. The reasons being: 1) When I rsync the root filesystem to xfs - I received some error messages about some files - when I checked these are; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00102.html (18,930 bytes)
14. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:45:45 -0500; , g: OK, named pipies and sockets were working at one point, they are currently broken - it will not let you create them, someone seems to have changed mknod and forgot about anything but block and; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00105.html (9,388 bytes)
15. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:18:35 +0100; Don't forget that readonly support also requires the ability to remount the filesystem between ro and rw, and the ability to suspend atime updates while the filesystem is readonly. --Stephen; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00108.html (9,729 bytes)
16. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:21:44 +0100; Because (a) existing Linux installations expect to mount the root filesystem readonly until basic consistency checking has been done; and (b) after a cold reboot, the filesystem will need recovery b; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00109.html (10,193 bytes)
17. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:22:54 +0100; It doesn't have to. That's a boot-time option. On systems where I'm running ext3 as the root filesystem, I tend to mount root read-write. --Stephen; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00110.html (9,525 bytes)
18. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Lyle Seaman <lws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:49:20 -0400; Ahhh. Now I see. The root fs is *always* cycling back and forth between read-write and read-only. So after nearly every crash, the root filesystem will be both unstable (ie, potentially inconsistent; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00111.html (9,321 bytes)
19. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 10:52:18 -0500; XFS already has read only support - we just need to allow recovery in read only mode, and the Linux remount code in XFS seems broken, so getting from read only to read-write is broken I think. Steve; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00112.html (9,911 bytes)
20. Re: XFS as Root filesystem (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:05:53 -0500; XFS doesn't actually try to detect file system inconstancies at mount time. (this would defeat quick recovery) If it can successfully replay the the log and complete all outstanding meta data request; /archives/xfs/2000-04/msg00113.html (10,599 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]