On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:42:05PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a problem of partitions themselves being very inflexible.
> Have said that I don't really understand why you'd ever want to do
> this. "In a consulting environment" you're much more likely to
> encounter some other mech
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:48:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> LVM is important and useful for managing storage. If, in the future, we have
> ZFS-like features in btrfs or whatever, okay, we can talk about getting rid
> of it. But a few-second gain in boot time is really, really, really not
> w
On 11/15/2010 12:00 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>>> and gave 6 of the pa
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 21:23, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
> has any idea what's going on here?
No idea, but you might be on the way to an hexadecimal dollar!
Regards,
--
Pierre Carrier
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> We definitely should stop setting up LVM by default on Fedora, because
> it allows us to disable these unnecessary enumeration delays that are
> broken by design anyway.
>
> If we don't have LVM on default installs, we also don'
On 11/14/2010 04:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
>
> I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
> ago.
>
> It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers which are
> required to ensure we only ever write
On 11/14/2010 01:13 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
>> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
>> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
>> then I could not rem
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:07:28PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> >> [stated advantages snipp
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:38:37AM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> [stated advantages snipped]
>
> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
> from an LVM. Once a portion of the
Once upon a time, Roberto Ragusa said:
> I don't remember if pvmove can use the same PV as src and dest;
> in that case you could avoid the need of an extra disk
> when your PV is just "fragmented".
You can; you have to specify manually the source and destination PEs,
and IIRC there's an extra op
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:03 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> > btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
>
>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
ago.
It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers whi
Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
has any idea what's going on here?
Thanks,
--
Michel
-- Forwarded message --
From: Fedora Koji Build System
Date: Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:29 PM
Subject: Package: pdfjam-2.07-1.fc13 Tag: dist-f13-updates-cand
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 13:07 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> When I created 14 partitions using a DOS partition label
> (3 primaries, plus extended containing 10 logical partitions)
> and gave 6 of the partitions to an LVM setup,
> then I could not remove one of the partitions from the clutches
> of the
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:41:00 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM inside of a software RAID0
> array on two Intel SSDs mounted with "discard" enabled. Am I being lied
> to about discard being enabled?
You probably
On 11/14/2010 07:03 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>
>> btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
>
> Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
Apparently that's being worked on:
https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Project_ideas#Raid5.2F6
Regards,
Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
On 11/14/2010 11:07 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
>> [stated advantages snipped]
>>
>> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary par
On 11/14/2010 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
>> never reaches the drive.
>
> Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
You should also file a bug against the tool
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Oops, that's not completely true: pvresize currently is not smart enough
> to move allocated data out of the area to be freed, according to its man
> page. But you have other options, e.g., you can attach another di
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 14:07 -0500, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> > On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> > [stated advantages snipped]
> >
> > One design error is that you cannot "carve
On Sun, 2010-11-14 at 10:38 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
> [stated advantages snipped]
>
> One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
> from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 11:38:50PM +, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> I'd say do try a rebuild of affected packages yourself, and notify the
> maintainers only in case there is a breakage and coordinate on what to do
> (otherwise they'd get an unpleasant FTBFS report).
>
That was helpful, th
On 11/13/2010 03:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Anyway, I think LVM is jolly useful:
[stated advantages snipped]
One design error is that you cannot "carve out" an ordinary partition
from an LVM. Once a portion of the drive is LVM, then that portion of
the drive is LVM forever until the LVM
> btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/14/2010 12:15 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> Anything installing an application on the system (whether it's part of
> Fedora or not) really should be installing a desktop file. If there's no
> desktop file, there's no way for the user to launch the application.
>
> In GNOME 3, no desktop file
On 11/13/2010 18:15, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
> yum install mock
> useradd mockbuild
> usermod -G mock mockbuild
Unless you want to ``su'' to a dedicated mockbuild account every time
you want to build you should add your usual account to the mock group
instead.
> mock rebuild -r epel-6-x8
Hi.
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 10:44:06 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote
> Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
Discard aside, btrfs should include all (or most of) the features
that LVM and raid0 were giving you, anyway.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:15 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 10:45 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> >> Kevin Fenzi writes:
> >>
> >>> * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
> >>
>
>
> Does anyone happen to know how to mimic the equivale
On 11/14/2010 10:42 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Yes unless something changed recently the filesystem's discard command
> never reaches the drive.
Looks like I'm reformatting and dumping the LVM. Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Something else to add to the list: Does not support discard (aka TRIM)
>> when using SSDs which hurts performance and lifetime of said drives.
>
> I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM insi
On 11/14/2010 09:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Something else to add to the list: Does not support discard (aka TRIM)
> when using SSDs which hurts performance and lifetime of said drives.
I have a btrfs file system inside of a LVM inside of a software RAID0
array on two Intel SSDs mounted with "discar
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 06:26:48PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> *DE could consider switching the default to use EXT4 directly without
>> LVM. [1]
>> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
>
> The "Detailed De
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 13:59:24 +0100,
Till Maas wrote:
>
> If there are no security updates, people can not apply them. So what is
> worse? If people stop applying updates, then it is at least their
> decision. If there are no updates, people can only choose not to use
Many people are going
On Sun, 14.11.10 13:14, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
> Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
>
> > Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
> > should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
> >
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:57:59AM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > Greetings.
> > >
> > > Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> > > Fe
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:11:11PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 06:34 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
> > to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
> > "ethX" to clearly labeled "lomX" matching the
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:17:57 -0500, Andre Robatino wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
>
>> IMO, as has been said before, if you have a delta method that doesn't
>> produce the exact same bits at the end ... you've probably failed. It
>> might seem like a good idea, but even if you go to the extreme len
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:54:02 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 18:01, Nicolas Mailhot
> wrote:
>> I despair of making *nix input people understand that LANGAGE ≠ INPUT
>> Please stop trying to derive one from the other, they are *distinct*
>> and one can (and often does) use
Hi,
/*Kevin Fenzi */ wrote on 11/14/2010 2:49:34 AM +0350:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 20:50:07 +0330
Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
/*Hedayat Vatankhah*/ wrote on 11/13/2010
5:28:49 PM +0350:
Hi all,
According to [1], my updated simspark package has been pushed to
stable; but it is not! The package is a
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 02:22:42PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 10:21:30AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > The documented issues do not seem to be as bad as a system being
> > exploited. It is only about dependency breakage or services not working
> > anymore. There is no
On 14/11/10 12:18, Liang Suilong wrote:
> Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become
> an option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is
> rpm-based distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros
> has moved to GRUB2. however, rpm-base
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 19:12:18 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Thanks to http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/RepoQuery
>
> If you need to figure out which srpms have a buildrequirement on a
> particular pkgname run:
> repoquery --archlist=src --repoid=some_repo_with_srpms \
> -q --whatrequires pkgname
>
Aha!
Return to GRUB2 topic, I wish that GRUB2 landed in Anaconda and become an
option for user. Some Linux fans install two Linux distros, one is rpm-based
distro, another is deb-based distro. Most of deb-based distros has moved to
GRUB2. however, rpm-based distros still stays at GRUB legacy. I can feel
Le dimanche 14 novembre 2010 à 01:14 +0100, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> Well, there's no doubt that LVM has its uses, but that doesn't mean we
> should install it by default on every Fedora installation.
>
> LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> code was slow o
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> I'll take it.
> Here is my review request:
>
> erlang-rpm-macros - Macros for simplifying building of Erlang packages
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652544
Perfect. Thanks!
Andrea.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
Hello!
2010/11/14 Andrea Musuruane :
> Hi packagers,
> I've a re-review request for hatari:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=62
>
> Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this?
I'll take it.
Here is my review request:
erlang-rpm-macros - Macros for simplify
Hi packagers,
I've a re-review request for hatari:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=62
Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this?
Regards,
Andrea.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 08:34:54PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> > Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
>
> biosdevname installed by defau
Compose started at Sun Nov 14 08:15:04 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
apcupsd-3.14.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.20()(64bit)
balsa-2.4.7-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> code was slow or anything, but simply because it isn't really written in
> the way that things are expected to work these days. The LVM assembly at
> boot is
49 matches
Mail list logo
