similar to: fsck fails (then succeeds)

From: Gordon Messmer Sent: April 21, 2015 10:30 > > On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I > am willing > > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. > > Why do you accept that? Every article I have read on the

From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 > > Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't > take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root > filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. > everything else. I am trying to avoid running them at the same time in an effort to avoid 70 minute boot times (which is

From: Warren Young Sent: April 21, 2015 14:13 > On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > >> > >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set > >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to > 23, and the > >> fourth to 29. > > > > Thanks but

Hi there, I'm running software raid 1 across two 60GB IDE drives and booting off the raid device. The raid device holds an ext3 filesystem. Each drive is configured as a master on its own bus. The system is redhat 7.2, stock kernel 2.4.9-31smp. The hardware platform is a Dell precision dual 2Ghz P4 system with 1G of memory. I have two of these systems, both configured identitically.

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > I have done some "what if" testing. Using which tool? My simulator, or something you cooked up yourself? If the latter, would you care to share? I?ve updated mine to break out the stats for 3+ volumes instead of just reporting all multi-volume fscks together:

Helo, We use a big fileserver running Linux/Samba as fileshare. We are facing performances problems for which we'd like some advise : Clients are OS2(LanManager) and windows 2000 reading and writing lots of files in the same directory on the fileshare. We currently have more than 80 000 files in the directory (files size is about 100 Bytes). Could you please advise us some Samba tuning

From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 > On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > > > > The second idea was to set each filesystem to a different random > > count value. This would run the risk of having two or more > > executions at the same time but it would probably not be very > > frequent. > > Using "tune2fs -c", set the

Hi, I discovered that SGI XFS for Linux har a utility called xfs_freeze, which freezes the filsystem and makes sure that the filesystem is consistant. It is a bit like a mount -o remount,ro but it does not fail when applications have open files. When we take snapshots of our XFS volume, we do "xfs_freeze -f /mnt/foo; lvcreate -s /dev/vg_foo/bar /dev/vg_foo/bar-snapshot;xfs_freeze -u

hi all, I'm trying to give access to snapshots taken from by dell iscsi MD3200i to my maildirs users. snapshot are mounted in read only mode from my FreeBSD box. In my /usr/local/etc/dovecot/conf.d/10-mail.conf, I have : namespace inbox { inbox = yes } namespace da1 { prefix = INBOX.backup.da1. hidden = no list = yes inbox = no location = maildir:/da1/%u/Maildir type = private } I

drbd-0.7.19 under kernel 2.6.17-rc4 is running on a primary node standalone. There are 8 resources in the same group. fsck.ext3 -fv is being run simultaneously on all of them. Each of the drbd devices are running on an lv, which all belong to a single pv. The actual "disk" is a hardware RAID connected via SCSI (i.e., the mpt driver). Five of the fsck finished their tasks

drbd-0.7.19 under kernel 2.6.17-rc4 is running on a primary node standalone. There are 8 resources in the same group. fsck.ext3 -fv is being run simultaneously on all of them. Each of the drbd devices are running on an lv, which all belong to a single pv. The actual "disk" is a hardware RAID connected via SCSI (i.e., the mpt driver). Five of the fsck finished their tasks

drbd-0.7.19 under kernel 2.6.17-rc4 is running on a primary node standalone. There are 8 resources in the same group. fsck.ext3 -fv is being run simultaneously on all of them. Each of the drbd devices are running on an lv, which all belong to a single pv. The actual "disk" is a hardware RAID connected via SCSI (i.e., the mpt driver). Five of the fsck finished their tasks

On 04/21/2015 06:08 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > CentOS 6 > > Hi All: > > Over the weekend I had to reboot one of my systems and got hit with > fsck runs on all of the filesystems. I would not mind so much except > doing them all at once took over an hour. I would like to be able to > stagger these, ideally only execute one fsck per reboot. I have been > able to

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > From: Les Mikesell Sent: April 21, 2015 09:19 >> >> Why do you care about running them at the same time when it doesn't >> take longer to run them all in parallel? Except I think the root >> filesystem normally runs first. So you might want to stagger it vs. >>

On 04/21/2015 09:40 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank wrote: > I accept that fscks are required on a periodic basis and I am willing > to reboot more often to achieve these but I would like to minimize > downtime (during the reboot) where possible. Why do you accept that? The default behavior for filesystems set up by Red Hat tools (anaconda) is not to fsck. Not by mount count, nor by time.

On Apr 21, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Hugh E Cruickshank <hugh at forsoft.com> wrote: > > From: Kay Diederichs Sent: April 21, 2015 03:43 >> >> instead of having 20 for all of them, set >> the first filesystem to 17, the second to 19, the third to 23, and the >> fourth to 29. > > Thanks but that is not much different then my second idea and does not > fully

Hi. Would it be hard to somehow make sure that a filsystem can only be mounted once? Shared storage is a pain and it would be nice if one could guarantee that a filsystem is only mounted by one computer. I guess this _might__maybe_ be implemented by using a block on the filsystem as "ping"-block. Mount would write a "ping" to this block, The kernel would then have to check

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:00 PM, David Greene<dag at cray.com> wrote: > On Wednesday 26 August 2009 12:59, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> class X { >> int A(int x) {....} >> inline int B(int x); >> }; >> inline int X::B(int x) {...} >> >> Per the language standard, A and B are semantically identical, both >> "inline".

If you would like a 10 second R puzzle, you might like to think about this one: > g <- expand.grid(long = 130:140, lat = -(10:25)) > gp <- transform(g, x = long, y = lat) Error in transform(g, x = long, y = lat) : object "long" not found I don't expect this hasn't come up before, but I can't find mention of it. I suggest that to minimise this little

got the following in the freshmeat newsletter. the page doesn't say anything about it. also the sct dir on kernel.org still shows the WIP version... [007] - e2fsprogs 1.20 (Default)   by P. Adami (http://freshmeat.net/users/ramirez/)   Monday, May 28th 2001 19:39 The ext2fsprogs package contains essential ext2 filesystem utilities which consists of e2fsck, mke2fs, debugfs, dumpe2fs, tune2fs,