similar to: Unsupported Kernel for X86_64 and i386

I made some tests to see how ext3 reiserfs 3.6 and jfs survive disk errors. The test is simple: format a partition, copy the kernel source, unmount and and do ?dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hdd bs=512 count=100000 seek=30000? to simulate a disk surface damage and then run fsck. seek=30000 ? this must be the second half of journal in reiserfs and ext3, for jfs I don't know Result: jfs: ---- total

Now that I've been enlightened to the terrible write performance of ext3 on my new 3Ware RAID 5 array, I'm stuck choosing an alternative filesystem. I benchmarked XFS, JFS, ReiserFS and ext3 and they came back in that order from best to worst performer. I'm leaning towards XFS because of performance and because centosplus makes kernel modules available for the stock kernel.

Hi, what mount ntfs file system? My centos return this error: mount: type file system ntfs not suported for kernel I need compile new kernel? thanks

Optimizations by reducing the STREQ operations and do some code cleanup. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/mkfs.c | 29 +++++++++++++---------------- 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/mkfs.c b/daemon/mkfs.c index a2c2366..7757623 100644 --- a/daemon/mkfs.c +++ b/daemon/mkfs.c @@ -44,13 +44,16 @@ do_mkfs_opts (const

What does the CentOSPlus kernel have that the standard kernel does not? It is just additional drivers and modules? Or are there additional differences? -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller at deepsoft.com --

Hello all, I'm relatively new to CentOS, but I've been using linux as my main operating system on both the desktop and server ends for the past 4 years. I currently have a PIII server with two 160GB IDE hard drives in it, in a virtual RAID 1 array. At the time of installation, the only FS choices for the largest partition, 120GB, were ext2 and ext3. I chose ext3, but now am wishing

We are looking at implementing a Linux box running samba in the near future with about 1TB of disk online. The purpose of this box will be for basic file and printer sharing needs. I am doing research on the different journaling file systems avaible in RH 7.3 and up (ext3, reiserFS, and JFS) and was wondering if anyone has had any real world experience with them (mostly reiserFS and JFS) and

Hi, I've recently benchmarked btrfs v0.11 & v0.12 against ext2, ext3, ext4, jfs, reiserfs and xfs. OS: Ubuntu Hardy Kernel: 2.6.24(-5-server) Hardware: --------- Fu-Si Primergy RX330 S1 * AMD Opteron 2210 1.8 GHz * 1 GB RAM * 3 x 73 GB, 3Gb/s, hot plug, 10k rpm, 3.5" SAS HDD * LSI RAID 128 MB Fu-Si Econel 200 * Intel Xeon 5110 * 512 MB RAM

>>>> Fine. Use reiserfs and don't worry about ctime. >>>> >>> But reiserfs doesn´t support ACLs. Does it? >> >> Oh yes, it does. Big way. >> > ?? > > I was under the impression that if i wanted acls, i > should use xfs, ext3 (or jsf i believe) but NOT > reisersf. > > Am I wrong? Does (for example) SuSE 8.2 with >

>> > > Fine. Use reiserfs and don't worry about ctime. >> > >> > Why? Does reiserfs handle ctime in a different >> > way than other linux filesystems? >> >> It's not supposed to given the same instructions >> from clients but it appears to because perhaps it >> elicits different kind of response from Office. >> Maybe

Lo, Actualy i'm looking for documents about journalised file system, in order to be able to compare them self. I need accurate information if i want to make a good study. Thoses informations have to permit me to get answer about table like this : Features \ fs | xfs | ext3 | jfs | reiserfs | ------------------------------------------------- chattr | ? | Y | ? | ?

I think I have this one solved, I hope. I think what Andreas and I are running into are a few different assertions. One being the LVM lvm_do_pv_flush caused assertion which is related directly to invalidate_buffers() being called which then triggers refile_buffer() on a journaled buffer, which appears clean in all other ways according to the checks in refile_buffer(). The following is what

Hello All, I have been doing some research to find a method to increase the performance of writes to the hard drives in my servers. I am running Samba and all writes to the server hard drives are taking at least 3 to 10 times (It varies) the amount of time it took to write such files on our older Windows NT 4.0 File Server. The following information is provided to keep this issue on track...

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

I've had the chance to use a testsystem here and couldn't resist running a few benchmark programs on them: bonnie++, tiobench, dbench and a few generic ones (cp/rm/tar/etc...) on ext{234}, btrfs, jfs, ufs, xfs, zfs. All with standard mkfs/mount options and +noatime for all of them. Here are the results, no graphs - sorry: http://nerdbynature.de/benchmarks/v40z/2009-12-22/ Reiserfs

Just curious about kernel requirements after the upgrade. I've been running the 2.6.9-11.106.unsupported kernel for some time. Now I see that the base kernel is up to 2.6.9-22.EL. Are there any plans to upgrade the unsupported kernel? Should I be using the newer kernel after the upgrade? Does it make any difference? Not trying to be pushy; just looking for information. Thanks for all the

Recently (and for ages, I'm sure) folks have suffered partition destruction and had to try and recover. In the recent thread, the victim eventually had to resort to Google and fond some package that I can not remember now. Well, I was perusing my YumInfo.lst.05, for general info, and I discovered this (potential) little gem. Thought I would pass it on and make it "more googleable"

Suse Linux Enterprise Server 9 SP3 I've tried to create a large 5TB file system using both reiserfs and ext3 and both have failed. I end up with only a 1.5TB file system. Does anyone know why this doesn't work, what to do to fix it? Others have suggested that only XFS or JFS will work. Is this so? Thanks, -Mark

On 09/15/2020 08:07 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 3:54 PM H <agents at meddatainc.com> wrote: >> I had installed kmod-jfs in an earlier version of CentOS 7, 7.4 if I remember correctly. I now have a machine running the latest version of jfs module but kmod-jfs does not seem to be available. >> >> Is anyone running it on the current version of CentOS?

Dear Listmembers, I try to work with samba (newest rpm for SuSE, 3.0.1.pre2, but that does not matter, the effect was there in 2.2.7 and 2.2.8a too) on an sufficient armed system (the system does not matter either, I have tried it on different machines) using ReiserFS (version 3.6.4-12). When accessing one share from one machine (i.e. copying two or more files at a time to or from the share)