Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfsdump\s+failing\s+on\s+sparc64\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfsdump\s+failing\s+on\s+sparc64\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 28 Apr 2002 10:22:02 -0600; I'm running xfsdump -l 0 -F -E -L "blah" -M "blah" - /mnt. It fails xfsdump: ERROR: /mnt/ does not identify a file system If I run strace to it, I see (stripped output): open("/etc/mtab", O_RDONLY) =; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00469.html (9,818 bytes)
2. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:26:57 +1000; Sounds like you have an old xfsdump with a new kernel... which kernel version and which xfsdump version are you using? If your kernel is >=2.4.18 (or the 1.1 release) you will need 2.0+ tools. cheers; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00472.html (7,990 bytes)
3. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 28 Apr 2002 16:28:18 -0600; I'm running a 2.4.18 kernel taken from the CVS a couple of days ago. And xfsdump --help claims its a 3.0. (BTW, I've just excecuted xfsdump --version, and take a look at its output (at the end) (...; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00473.html (8,067 bytes)
4. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:41:50 +1000; Yeah, that version numbers not helpful, sorry. We should fix that - its leftover from IRIX. To get the real version... "rpm -q xfsdump", if you use rpm; "dpkg -s xfsdump", if you use dpkg; ...or xfs; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00474.html (9,131 bytes)
5. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 28 Apr 2002 16:44:15 -0600; Nahh... I use Slackware[1]. It says 2.0.1. Great. Thanks. [1] On sparc? Well, more or less. Its a community made sparc port. -- Alvaro Figueroa; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00475.html (8,082 bytes)
6. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:01:21 +1000; OK, so its not a version number problem, its something else, I can't tell what from the above strace output. Your best bet will probably be gdb, step through the code till something goes astray & fig; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00476.html (9,511 bytes)
7. xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: 28 Apr 2002 10:22:02 -0600; I'm running xfsdump -l 0 -F -E -L "blah" -M "blah" - /mnt. It fails xfsdump: ERROR: /mnt/ does not identify a file system If I run strace to it, I see (stripped output): open("/etc/mtab", O_RDONLY) =; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01013.html (9,818 bytes)
8. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:26:57 +1000; Sounds like you have an old xfsdump with a new kernel... which kernel version and which xfsdump version are you using? If your kernel is >=2.4.18 (or the 1.1 release) you will need 2.0+ tools. cheers; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01016.html (7,990 bytes)
9. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: 28 Apr 2002 16:28:18 -0600; I'm running a 2.4.18 kernel taken from the CVS a couple of days ago. And xfsdump --help claims its a 3.0. (BTW, I've just excecuted xfsdump --version, and take a look at its output (at the end) (...; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01017.html (8,067 bytes)
10. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:41:50 +1000; Yeah, that version numbers not helpful, sorry. We should fix that - its leftover from IRIX. To get the real version... "rpm -q xfsdump", if you use rpm; "dpkg -s xfsdump", if you use dpkg; ...or xfs; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01018.html (9,131 bytes)
11. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: 28 Apr 2002 16:44:15 -0600; Nahh... I use Slackware[1]. It says 2.0.1. Great. Thanks. [1] On sparc? Well, more or less. Its a community made sparc port. -- Alvaro Figueroa; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01019.html (8,082 bytes)
12. Re: xfsdump failing on sparc64 (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:01:21 +1000; OK, so its not a version number problem, its something else, I can't tell what from the above strace output. Your best bet will probably be gdb, step through the code till something goes astray & fig; /archives/xfs/2002-04/msg01020.html (9,511 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]