> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> reconfigure everything each time, spending 10-30 minutes to learn
> >> how to use fsck and print out the manpage is nothing. That was
> >> my main point. I'm just trying to offer help to the real
> >> solution thats all. Nobody has
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> You just don't get it. There is _NO_ 100% solution that will
>> stop every single user from ever experiencing disk corruption,
>> and hence fsck from needing to be ran. It is impossible for fsck
>> to automatically repair filesystems 100% of the t
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >My main point is that this is not proprietary Unix where cost
> >virtually ensures only relatively big organizations (the needs of
> >smalleer ones could be handled by cheaper systems) use it and thus you
> >can design basing on the paradigm
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 03:22:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My main point is that this is not proprietary Unix where cost
> virtually ensures only relatively big organizations (the needs of
> smalleer ones could be handled by cheaper systems) use it and thus you
> can design basing on the
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My main point is that this is not proprietary Unix where cost
>virtually ensures only relatively big organizations (the needs of
>smalleer ones could be handled by cheaper systems) use it and thus you
>can design basing on the paradigm the system admi
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> deeper fs knowledge however. If one finds themselves frequently
> >> experiencing corruption problems, it might pay to learn the
> >> filesystem internals. A good day or two's reading I believe
> >> should give plenty of info to handle mo
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
>> Problem about reading for a couple days is that this implies user's
>> job is knowing everything about system administration. This is
>> possible if eiuser is a consultant or user is a system administrator
>> in a big compnay so there are hundred peo
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> deeper fs knowledge however. If one finds themselves frequently
>> experiencing corruption problems, it might pay to learn the
>> filesystem internals. A good day or two's reading I believe
>> should give plenty of info to handle most situations.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:38:25PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Problem about reading for a couple days is that this implies user's
> job is knowing everything about system administration. This is
> possible if eiuser is a consultant or user is a system administrator
> in a big compnay so
>
> >> reconfigure everything each time, spending 10-30 minutes to learn
> >> how to use fsck and print out the manpage is nothing. That was
> >> my main point. I'm just trying to offer help to the real
> >> solution thats all. Nobody has to follow it.. ;o)
> >>
> >
> >Knowing fsck is useles
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> reconfigure everything each time, spending 10-30 minutes to learn
>> how to use fsck and print out the manpage is nothing. That was
>> my main point. I'm just trying to offer help to the real
>> solution thats all. Nobody has to follow it.. ;o)
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> So something like: e2fsck -p -y /dev/hda1
>>
>> That automatically answers yes to all questions and repairs
>> without questions. This doesn't mean that the filesystem will be
>> in a state that is useful when it is done though. fsck asks you
>
>
> >> >Just went throughh that yesterday, RHL 6.3. I'm not competent to run that
> >> >wretched program in manuam mode, and I doubth that anyone on this list is.
> >>
> >> What is so hard about fsck? Has anyone actually read the
> >> manpage? If not, then I can see it being difficult, but af
> >> >Certainly nobody's going to take the time to give a considered reply to e
> ach
> >>
> >> >and every of the thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of questions it aske
> d m
> >> e.
> >> >I held "y" down and still it took an hour or so.
> >>
> >> Nobody would have to if they read the manpa
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> >Just went throughh that yesterday, RHL 6.3. I'm not competent to run that
>> >wretched program in manuam mode, and I doubth that anyone on this list is.
>>
>> What is so hard about fsck? Has anyone actually read the
>> manpage? If not, then I c
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> >> Losing important data due to an untimely crash or powerdown is also an
> >> issue in serious applications.
> >
> >
> >Hear Hear!!
> >
> >Just went throughh that yesterday, RHL 6.3. I'm not competent to run that
> >wretched program in manuam m
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, John Summerfield wrote:
>> Losing important data due to an untimely crash or powerdown is also an
>> issue in serious applications.
>
>
>Hear Hear!!
>
>Just went throughh that yesterday, RHL 6.3. I'm not competent to run that
>wretched program in manuam mode, and I doubth th
> Whither backups? A journaled filesystem will NOT protect against: 1)
> failed hard drive; 2) hacker damage; 3) virus/worm damage; 4) accidental
That's all true.
However, those backups are no substitute for a fixup program that works well
and does NOT require a lot of technical knowl
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 01:01:50AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First: for private users there is no reasonably priced solution for
> backing up a 20G disk spevcilly since they should have at least three
> complete backups of it.
Actually, not true. Take a look at removable drive bays like
>
> Whither backups? A journaled filesystem will NOT protect against: 1)
> failed hard drive; 2) hacker damage; 3) virus/worm damage; 4) accidental
> file deletions or modifications. In my experience managing about 300
> computers, hard drives fail more often than it is necessary to run fsck
>
Whither backups? A journaled filesystem will NOT protect against: 1)
failed hard drive; 2) hacker damage; 3) virus/worm damage; 4) accidental
file deletions or modifications. In my experience managing about 300
computers, hard drives fail more often than it is necessary to run fsck
"manually."
> -"No. I know of a litterture professor who after an untimely powerdown,
> found that the automatic fsck failed so he was asked to repair manualy
> and found himself unable to do it"
>
> Losing important data due to an untimely crash or powerdown is also an
> issue in serious applications.
H
BS"D
We surely need an FS who is better at error recovery than ext2fs.
But anyway, guys at Compaq use to talk much if the day is long!
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> A few months ago a Compaq guy told me:
>
> "-Linux will never be ready for Joe Users"
> "-It is nearing"
> -"No. I know of a litt
>
> Not in a distribution. Unsupported stuff should not be included
> in the main dist at all IMHO. Even putting it in a separate dir
> will generate excessive support calls and emails from people who
> can't understand that files in an /unsupported directory are
> completely unsupported, not t
"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> I have recently heard that ext3 is very useable now, despite not
> getting a lot of media attention, and so I'm going to try it out
> soon and possibly switch from reiserfs to ext3. If I do, I'll
> definitely announce my results for comparison..
I think I'd rather see S
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Daniel Hammer wrote:
>I know that ReiserFS has some disadvantages too (no RAID support,
>no quota support, ... etc.). But including some patched kernel
Exactly.
>could also bring another effect, namely that lots of people
>(that do not apply patches themselves) could mess a
BS"D
Thanx Mike (A. Harris), a very logical and clear answer to
my question!
I know that ReiserFS has some disadvantages too (no RAID support,
no quota support, ... etc.). But including some patched kernel
could also bring another effect, namely that lots of people
(that do not apply patches th
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000, Daniel Hammer wrote:
>is there any reason why Reiser FS is not supported by
>Pinstripe?
Reiserfs is an experimental patch to the kernel. It plays with
stuff in the kernel that is considered non-kosher by Linus et al.
Mainly because the kernel doesn't have a journalling fram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Copeland ) writes:
> >> I understand that "officially" it did not enter the
> >> kernel but there are patches by "Mandrake" and "SuSE"
> >
> >It isn't even in the 2.4 kernel - of course, patches can be made. But
> >the kernel group have to feel that we can stand behind
>> I understand that "officially" it did not enter the
>> kernel but there are patches by "Mandrake" and "SuSE"
>
>It isn't even in the 2.4 kernel - of course, patches can be made. But
>the kernel group have to feel that we can stand behind it for it to go
>into our distribution.
Okay, just out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Hammer ) writes:
> is there any reason why Reiser FS is not supported by
> Pinstripe?
The kernel group thought it too unstable.
> I understand that "officially" it did not enter the
> kernel but there are patches by "Mandrake" and "SuSE"
It isn't even in the 2.4 kern
31 matches
Mail list logo
