Thanks Gordon .. a relief .. I am still inclined to move data and rebuild
with all the current default EXT4 attributes.
Steve
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 12:50 PM, Steve Brooks wrote:
>> tune4fs listed the filesystem state as "not clean". I remounted them as
On 10/05/2010 12:50 PM, Steve Brooks wrote:
> tune4fs listed the filesystem state as "not clean". I remounted them as
> read only while I decided what to do. The next day I check them again and
> "tune4fs" reports the filesystem state as "clean". Could this be normal
> behaviour?
Yes. "not clean
In the two 11T EXT4 filesystems (raid level 6), referred to inprevious
posts, built on devices
/dev/sdb
/dev/sdc
tune4fs listed the filesystem state as "not clean". I remounted them as
read only while I decided what to do. The next day I check them again and
"tune4fs" reports the filesystem s
On 10/05/10 5:25 AM, mcclnx mcc wrote:
> Anyone know ORACLE support EXT4 or not?
Oracle knows.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Anyone know ORACLE support EXT4 or not?
--- 10/10/5 (二)，Steve Brooks 寫道：
> 寄件者: Steve Brooks
> 主旨: Re: [CentOS] EXT4 mount issue
> 收件者: "CentOS mailing list"
> 日期: 2010年10月5日,二,上午5:24
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The "/etc/mke4fs.conf" is below. This file
Hi Brent, Thanks for the reply.
I have to make a decision yes, it is not an easy one either, I read have so
many different reports, opinions that I now feel my brain has become rather
scrambled.. Wondering now if I should just have smaller filesystems and stick
with EXT3.. I have never used XF
Hi,
The "/etc/mke4fs.conf" is below. This file has never been edited by me or
anyone else.
[defaults]
base_features =
sparse_super,filetype,resize_inode,dir_index,ext_attr
blocksize = 4096
inode_size = 256
inode_ratio = 16384
[fs_types]
ext3 = {
> The defaults are determined by /etc/mke2fs.conf. If you've modified or
> removed that file, mkfs.ext4 will behave differently
On my CentOS 5.5 systems, defaults for ext4 reside on "/etc/mke4fs.conf".
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://
On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Steve Brooks wrote:
> The really odd thing here
> is that on another raid disk created the "exact" same way with the exact
> same parameters to "mkfs" and identically mounted I have an EXT4
> filesystem with different attributes, see below. Surely that should not
> happen.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> I was just a little worried at the response from Brent earlier quote
>> "Don't play Russian Roulette and use ext4." .
>
> Maybe he was referring to some old information dating back to the
> development period.
>
> ext4 has been declared
> I was just a little worried at the response from Brent earlier quote
> "Don't play Russian Roulette and use ext4." .
Maybe he was referring to some old information dating back to the
development period.
ext4 has been declared stable by the kernel people. As a matter of fact
it is now the d
bg sparse_super large_file huge_file uninit_bg
dir_nlink extra_isize
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Miguel Medalha
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:41 PM
To: Steve Brooks
Cc: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] E
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Miguel Medalha wrote:
>
>> Filesystem state: not clean
>>
>
> You should really look at that line and at why it is there.
Thanks again Miguel,
Yep I have mounted the filesystems as read only for the time being. I am
inclined to move the data and rebuild the filesys
Hi Miguel,
Thanks for the reply.
> "What people are saying"? So instead of understanding and solving some issue
I was just a little worried at the response from Brent earlier quote
"Don't play Russian Roulette and use ext4." . The really odd thing here
is that on another raid disk created th
> Filesystem state: not clean
>
You should really look at that line and at why it is there.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> Below is the output from "tune4fs". From what people are saying it
> looks like et4 may not be the way to go.
>
"What people are saying"? So instead of understanding and solving some
issue you just jump wagon, maybe only to find some other issue there?
ext4 is stable and works perfectly. You
Hi,
Below is the output from "tune4fs". From what people are saying it looks
like et4 may not be the way to go.
[r...@sraid3 ~]# tune4fs -l /dev/sdb
tune4fs 1.41.9 (22-Aug-2009)
Filesystem volume name:
Last mounted on: /sraid3/sraid3
Filesystem UUID: adc08889-f6a9-47c6-a570
On 4 October 2010 20:07, Steve Brooks wrote:
> both are 11T and so I would prefer as much stability as possible, io
> performance is not an issue on either device just integrity so I thought
> the journal would be default and necessary.
>
> Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
>
My two pence w
Can you give us the output of "tune4fs -l /dev/sdb" ?
Does it show " has_journal" under "Filesystem features"?
If it doesn't, you can input the following:
tune4fs -o journal_data
The option "journal_data" fits the case in which you don't care about
the fastest speed but you put your focus on
Hi All,
When a couple of EXT4 filesystems are mounted in a server I get the
message
Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdb): mounted filesystem without journal
Oct 1 18:49:42 sraid3 kernel: EXT4-fs (sdc): mounted filesystem without journal
in the system logs.
My confusion is why are they
20 matches
Mail list logo
