Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*kernel\s+spam\s+when\s+mounting\s+xfs\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*kernel\s+spam\s+when\s+mounting\s+xfs\s*$/: 26 ]

Total 26 documents matching your query.

1. kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:45:37 -0800; i just recently converted a machine to use xfs on all partitions sans /boot. the only thing i really dislike about it is all the spam from the kernel when the filesystems are mounted: Start mounting; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00056.html (9,229 bytes)
2. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Simon Matter <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:53:23 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBF157306; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:53:23 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG, B; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00057.html (10,901 bytes)
3. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: David Lloyd <lloy0076@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:40:39 +0930; If you search the ReiserFS mailing list there was an absolute flame war about this very matter ;-P DSL -- Pussy's good for six at the most (Mrs. Lovett, Sweeney Todd); /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00059.html (8,935 bytes)
4. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 05:06:37 -0400; Isn't everything on the ReiserFS mailing list a flame of some form or another? :-) :-) :-) - Vlad; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00061.html (9,624 bytes)
5. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 01:15:30 -0800; no i prefer to use filesystems that runs on archetectures other then i386 ;-) ok thats bad (ya reason not to use reiserfs...). but still my request stands. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbe; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00062.html (10,877 bytes)
6. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:35:12 +0200; At least the sponsorship crap is ripped out in the kernel versions. There are more than enough (technical) reasons not to use reiserfs, though.. Christoph -- Of course it doesn't work. We've performe; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00082.html (9,032 bytes)
7. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues <anr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:27:14 -0300; Ok, I'll bite, I use ReiserFS and I'm new to this list. What are the technical reasons not to use ReiserFS? Thanks, -- Adriano; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00098.html (8,396 bytes)
8. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 20:53:19 +0800 (PHT); Aha! Another target for conversion. Just kidding. I'm also new to the list (especially relative to the real gurus like Eric, Nathan, Steve or Seth, among others), but not quite as new as you I guess.; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00111.html (10,302 bytes)
9. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 17:04:27 +0200; Just to stop the FUD a bit: The last known reiserfs NFS problem (not being able to resolve file handles again under heavy load) has been fixed with 2.4.5. Before that it has been several years been d; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00113.html (9,520 bytes)
10. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 23:25:27 +0800 (PHT); Oops. I didn't mean that as FUD but now that I think about it, it was. My sincerest apologies, and thank you very much Andi for that wakeup call. I was not quite sure about the stability of ReiserFS+; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00116.html (9,429 bytes)
11. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Peter Wächtler <pwaechtler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 17:49:40 +0200; Another topic that scares me: Is gcc 2.95.[23] considered bad to compile xfs? Why is egcs-2.91-something recommended? I use 2.4.3-xfs on an i686 SMP machine as NFS server, and I had at least two hard; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00118.html (9,896 bytes)
12. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: "Michael Wahlbrink" <miw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 22:27:16 +0200; Hi Peter, They told me to do so last week, fetch the following packages from redhat.com: kgcc-1.1.2-40.i386.rpm compat-egcs-6.2-1.1.2.9.i386.rpm compat-glibc-6.2-2.1.3.2.i386.rpm and install them wit; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00123.html (8,786 bytes)
13. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: Florin Andrei <florin@xxxxxxx>; Date: 06 Sep 2001 16:39:42 -0700; Just to point out a small thing: in your presentation, you say "full data journalling offers a severe performance impact, effectively halfing write performance". Well, this may or may not be true. In; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00141.html (9,509 bytes)
14. kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:45:37 -0800; i just recently converted a machine to use xfs on all partitions sans /boot. the only thing i really dislike about it is all the spam from the kernel when the filesystems are mounted: Start mounting; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00734.html (9,229 bytes)
15. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 08:53:23 +0200; from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBF157306; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 08:53:23 +0200 (CEST) Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx Organization: Sauter AG, B; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00735.html (10,901 bytes)
16. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 16:40:39 +0930; If you search the ReiserFS mailing list there was an absolute flame war about this very matter ;-P DSL -- Pussy's good for six at the most (Mrs. Lovett, Sweeney Todd); /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00737.html (8,935 bytes)
17. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 05:06:37 -0400; Isn't everything on the ReiserFS mailing list a flame of some form or another? :-) :-) :-) - Vlad; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00739.html (9,624 bytes)
18. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 01:15:30 -0800; no i prefer to use filesystems that runs on archetectures other then i386 ;-) ok thats bad (ya reason not to use reiserfs...). but still my request stands. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbe; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00740.html (10,877 bytes)
19. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 17:35:12 +0200; At least the sponsorship crap is ripped out in the kernel versions. There are more than enough (technical) reasons not to use reiserfs, though.. Christoph -- Of course it doesn't work. We've performe; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00760.html (9,032 bytes)
20. Re: kernel spam when mounting xfs (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 16:27:14 -0300; Ok, I'll bite, I use ReiserFS and I'm new to this list. What are the technical reasons not to use ReiserFS? Thanks, -- Adriano; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00776.html (8,396 bytes)

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