Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:55 AM Mark Haney wrote:
To be honest, I'd not try a btrfs volume on a notebook SSD. I did that on a
couple of systems and it corrupted pretty quickly. I'd stick with xfs/ext4
if you manage to get the drive working again.
Sounds like a hardware
On 08/10/2017 04:16 PM, Leon Fauster wrote:
Am 10.08.2017 um 21:00 schrieb Mark Haney :
I can't seem to find anything clear on this, but is the C7 version of BIND 9.9
built with Request Rate Limiting?
_Response_ Rate Limiting - I think its possible since EL6:
https://access.redhat.com/errata
On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to sector 17066160 and see if
the
drive complies or spits back a write error. It looks like a bad sector
Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM, hw wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:55 AM Mark Haney wrote:
>>
>>> To be honest, I'd not try a btrfs volume on a notebook SSD. I did that on
>>> a
>>> couple of systems and
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
> On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to sector 17066160 and
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
> Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Sounds like a hardware problem. Btrfs is explicitly optimized for SSD,
> the
> >> maintainers worked for FusionIO for several years of its development. If
> >> the
Chris Murphy wrote:
Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM, hw wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017, 11:55 AM Mark Haney wrote:
To be honest, I'd not try a btrfs volume on a notebook SSD. I did that on
a
couple of systems
Mark Haney wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.
Sounds like a hardware problem. Btrfs is explicitly optimized for SSD,
the
maintainers worked for FusionIO for several years of its development. If
the dr
On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:00 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:41 AM, hw wrote:
>> That´s one thing I´ve been wondering about: When using btrfs RAID, do you
>> need to somehow monitor the disks to see if one has failed?
>
> Yes.
>
> The block layer has no faulty device handli
On 08/11/2017 10:52 AM, hw wrote:
Software RAID with mdadm is a bad idea because it comes with quite
some performance loss.
That's not usually the case in my experience. Battery-backed write
caches make benchmarks like bonnie++ look amazing, but in real workloads
I typically see better perf
On Aug 11, 2017, at 11:52 AM, hw wrote:
>
> Software RAID with mdadm is a bad idea because
> it comes with quite some performance loss.
That sounds like outdated information, from the time before CPUs were fast
enough to do parity RAID calculations with insignificant overhead.
> ZFS is trouble
Warren Young wrote:
[...]
What do they suggest as a replacement?
Stratis: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf
Can I use that now?
The main downside to Stratis I see is that it looks like 1.0 is scheduled to
coincide with RHEL 8, based on the release dates of RHELs
On Aug 11, 2017, at 12:39 PM, hw wrote:
>
> Warren Young wrote:
>
>> [...]
What do they suggest as a replacement?
>>
>> Stratis: https://stratis-storage.github.io/StratisSoftwareDesign.pdf
>
> Can I use that now?
As I said, they’re targeting the first testable releases for Fedora 28.
W
Once upon a time, hw said:
> How do you install on an XFS that is adjusted to the stripe size and the
> number of
> units when using hardware RAID? I tried that, without success.
You have to use a kickstart - that's always been the answer if you want
to customize features of the root filesystem
On 08/11/2017 12:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
If it's a bad sector problem, you'd write to
On Aug 11, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
>> Yeah he'd want to do an fsck -f and see if repairs are madestem.
>
> fsck checks filesystem metadata, not the content of files.
Chris might have been thinking of fsck -c or -k, which do various sorts of
badblocks scans.
That’s still a poor
Robert Nichols wrote:
> On 08/11/2017 12:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Robert Nichols
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
> On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
On 08/11/2017 02:32 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Robert Nichols wrote:
On 08/11/2017 12:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 7:53 AM, Robert Nichols
wrote:
On 08/10/2017 11:06 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Thu, Aug 10, 2017, 6:48 AM Robert Moskowitz
wrote:
On 08/09/2017 10:46 AM
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Mark Haney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Chris Murphy
> wrote:
>
>> Changing the subject since this is rather Btrfs specific now.
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like a hardware problem. Btrfs is explicitly optimized for SSD,
>> the
>> >> maintainers work
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 11:37 AM, hw wrote:
> I want to know when a drive has failed. How can I monitor that? I´ve begun
> to use btrfs only recently.
Maybe checkout epylog and have it monitor for BTRFS messages. That's
your earliest warning because Btrfs will complain with any csum
mismatch e
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> I rather doubt btrfs will be compiled out of the kernel in EL8, and even if
> it is, it’ll probably be in the CentOSPlus kernels.
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/7.4_Release_Notes/chap-Red_Hat
21 matches
Mail list logo
