On Sat, April 30, 2016 1:19 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> On 04/30/2016 11:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
>>> ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on
>>> its
>>> face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux o
On 04/30/2016 11:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on this
On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote:
> ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
> face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
>
As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on this list. There are only two
things that require
Not all patches require rebooting the kernel. Most do not.
On 04/30/2016 10:56 AM, William Warren wrote:
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
O
ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its
face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else.
On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows admi
On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote:
> uptime=insecurity.
This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins
still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need
[security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security
patches
uptime=insecurity. Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime
won't matter when your server gets compromised.
On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
tune2fs against ext4.
Could this possibly be a machine where upt
Then you either made a mistake or ran into a bug. Both "normal" disk
partitions and logical volumes are regular block devices and tune2fs or
other tool operating on block devices will see no difference between
them and treat them identical.
On 30.04.2016 12:42, Rob Townley wrote:
> Not in my testi
Not in my testing especially about the time of 6.4.
On Apr 22, 2016 5:16 PM, "Gordon Messmer" wrote:
> On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
>
>> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
>> tune2fs against ext4.
>>
>
> tune2fs operates on the content of a block d
On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote:
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
tune2fs against ext4.
tune2fs operates on the content of a block device. A logical volume
containing an ext4 system is exactly the same as a partition containing
an ext4 filesyste
tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as
tune2fs against ext4.
Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman
> wrote:
>
>
> ># rpm -qf
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman wrote:
># rpm -qf `which tune2fs`
>e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64
That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but
I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter.
> # cat /etc/redhat-release
> CentOS release 6.5
I have an ext4 filesystem for which I'm trying to use "tune2fs -l".
Here is the listing of the filesystem from the "mount" command:
# mount | grep share
/dev/mapper/VolGroup_Share-LogVol_Share on /share type ext4
(rw,noatime,nodiratime,usrjquota=aquota.user,jqfmt=vfsv0,data=writeback,nobh,barrier=
13 matches
Mail list logo
