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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+question\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. XFS question (score: 1): Author: "Castellanos, Leon" <lcastellanos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:40:40 -0400; First I wanted to thank you for the effort you put in to contribute this great part of your technology to the open source community and specially to Linux. I just converted all my file systems to xf; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00023.html (7,954 bytes)
2. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: Rahul Jain <rahul@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:57:06 -0500; I don't think this issue has anything to do with mount. It has to do with your init scripts not cleaning up /var/run on boot, as they should. e.g. on Debian: -- excerpt from /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh -; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00024.html (9,909 bytes)
3. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 18:59:00 -0400; Hmm never tried that... guess we'll have to look at that. Note no file system can guarantee no data is ever lost. Pulling the plug on a system means any data still on the cache that has not been writ; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00025.html (10,495 bytes)
4. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 01:44:11 +0200 (CEST); I see this on RedHat too. It spits out a warning if it has to replay it's log to mount the fs. After that it _is_ mounted ro. You can't really mount a journaling fs without logreplay. Maybe you could; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00028.html (8,018 bytes)
5. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 19:26:06 -0500; I don't think there's really a problem here - a warning is generated, but I think it's just saying "hey, you wanted read only, but I'm going to be read-write for a minute so I can play the log" I hav; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg00034.html (8,415 bytes)
6. XFS question (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 17:40:40 -0400; First I wanted to thank you for the effort you put in to contribute this great part of your technology to the open source community and specially to Linux. I just converted all my file systems to xf; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01387.html (7,954 bytes)
7. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 16:57:06 -0500; I don't think this issue has anything to do with mount. It has to do with your init scripts not cleaning up /var/run on boot, as they should. e.g. on Debian: -- excerpt from /etc/init.d/bootmisc.sh -; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01388.html (9,909 bytes)
8. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: ul@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 18:59:00 -0400; Hmm never tried that... guess we'll have to look at that. Note no file system can guarantee no data is ever lost. Pulling the plug on a system means any data still on the cache that has not been writ; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01389.html (10,495 bytes)
9. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: e@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 01:44:11 +0200 (CEST); I see this on RedHat too. It spits out a warning if it has to replay it's log to mount the fs. After that it _is_ mounted ro. You can't really mount a journaling fs without logreplay. Maybe you could; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01392.html (8,018 bytes)
10. Re: XFS question (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 19:26:06 -0500; I don't think there's really a problem here - a warning is generated, but I think it's just saying "hey, you wanted read only, but I'm going to be read-write for a minute so I can play the log" I hav; /archives/xfs/2001-05/msg01398.html (8,415 bytes)
11. XFS Question (score: 1): Author: "Shue, David CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RITB" <David.Shue.ctr@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:21:47 -0400; Hello, I originally installed XFS on my RHEL 5.1 system. This system is on a closed network. I would like to update the system to the latest RHEL release(5.4). I’m curious about what will happe; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00231.html (8,056 bytes)
12. Re: XFS Question (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:52:46 -0400; On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 08:21:47AM -0400, Shue, David CTR USAF AFMC AFRL/RITB wrote: RHEL5.4 includes a xfs module which will be as unsupported as your current configuration. You can keep the userspa; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00232.html (7,678 bytes)
13. Re: XFS Question (score: 1): Author: Sujit K M <sjt.kar@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 18:23:00 +0530; Hi, I donot think there will be any guarantee to the system unless base kernel is built to the RHEL 5.3 Distribution. I have an ubuntu 8.10 but when I had tried upgrading to ubuntu 9.04 I had Issues; /archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00233.html (10,215 bytes)
14. Re: XFS Question (score: 1): Author: pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi); Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:22:16 +0100; Your XFS system was not part of RHEL and will continue to be so. It will continue to work. RHEL5.1 and RHEL5.4 are just updates of the same OS, and RH sort of guarantees binary compatibility between; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00014.html (7,504 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]