On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> If you have proper backups, you should be able to destroy the pool,
> make a new one and restore the backup. If you do not have backups,
> then I think there are more important things to consider than your
> ability to do this without them.
I
Walter Dnes posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:04:22 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 08:28:23AM +, Duncan wrote
>
>> That leaves those using a dev-manager other than udev in a current
>> installation who are depending on the current system set listing to
>> bring in module-init-tools
> That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes. You can
> create raidz's and add them to a zpool. You can add individual
> drives/partitions to zpools. You can remove any of these from a zpool
> at any time and have it move data into other storage areas. However,
> you can't resha
William Hubbs posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:25:55 -0600 as excerpted:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 08:44:39AM +, Duncan wrote:
>> You are however correct that it'll be on most systems, at least with
>> udev-181, since udev won't build without kmod, now. (I found that out
>> when the build broke
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> raidz has 3 varieties, which are single parity, double parity and
> triple parity. As for reshaping, ZFS is a logical volume manager. You
> can set and resize limits on ZFS datasets as you please.
That isn't my understanding as far as raidz re
> Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks? I can't see how
> its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
> superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).
ZFS uses ARC as its page replacement algorithm, which is superior to
the LRU page repla
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
> ZFSOnLinux performance tuning is not a priority either, but there have
> been a few patches and the performance is good. btrfs might one day
> outperform ZFS in terms of single disk performance, assuming that it
> does not already, but I questi
> Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
> ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
> likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
> most likely to not be running Gentoo. There are a bazillion problems
> with btrfs
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 08:28:23AM +, Duncan wrote
> That leaves those using a dev-manager other than udev in a current
> installation who are depending on the current system set listing to bring
> in module-init-tools. I believe busybox has it's own modutils as well,
> doesn't it, so that
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 08:44:39AM +, Duncan wrote:
> You are however correct that it'll be on most systems, at least with
> udev-181, since udev won't build without kmod, now. (I found that out
> when the build broke on me due to missing kmod, as I've had udev unmasked
> for awhile and got
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> As such, I disagree with floppym that the handbook's kernel module
> section needs updating for this, too. The handbook doesn't even deal
> with non-default dev-managers, nor does it mention module-init-tools, it
> just assume
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion.
Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:55:37PM +0100, Justin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> is there a way to do a way or two way sync between a repo on github and
> on g.o.g.o?
>
> I have the felling that I heard of an official overlay which is operated
> like this. Could someone please point me to this overlay and t
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
>> them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
>
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> kernel modules are only available in the form of ebuilds
Okay, looks like there are no objections. I'll commit this tomorrow.
On 02/21/2012 12:42 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
Hi everyone,
An issue came up with valgrind on the new multilib-portage which adds
CFLAGS_$target_abi to $CFLAGS [1]. Valgrind fails to compile when
-m64 is added because it
Hi all,
is there a way to do a way or two way sync between a repo on github and
on g.o.g.o?
I have the felling that I heard of an official overlay which is operated
like this. Could someone please point me to this overlay and the technique?
thanks justin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP di
Robin H. Johnson posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 07:21:40 + as excerpted:
> I think we should examine dropping virtual/modutils from system.
> It'll be on most systems anyway however. It's needed to build any
> kernel, so the only place where it won't be would be a system with a
> monolithic kernel
William Hubbs posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:01:07 -0600 as excerpted:
> Also, this brings up another question. I replaced module-init-tools in
> the system set with virtual/modutils. But, since it is possible to have
> a linux system with a monolithic kernel, should this even be in the
> system s
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 12:01:07AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> The dependencies on module-init-tools in the tree should be changed to
> virtual/modutils. I am willing to do this myself if no one objects. If I
> do, should I open individual bugs for the packages?
As kernel-misc, I've fixed them al
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:35:24 -0800 as excerpted:
> I've been using btrfs for temp storage, for more than a year
> The only problems I've experienced are:
>
> 1) Intermittent ENOSPC when unpacking lots of files. Maybe this is
> related to having compression enabled. I haven't e
Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:53:50 -0500 as excerpted:
> From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have
> heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed. I'd
> definitely keep good backups though. Just read the mailing lists,
> or for kicks
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:01 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
> If not, once the dependencies are correct, I propose
> dropping virtual/modutils from the system set.
If we drop it from the system set, the kernel modules section of the
handbook should be updated.
Richard Yao posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:06:21 -0500 as excerpted:
> Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I am
> maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:
>
> https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
>
> Data stored on ZFS is
23 matches
Mail list logo
