similar to: Ordered Mode vs Journaled Mode

Hello, I have this bug report that I have filed. Is there any specific reason why samba behaves this way, and doesn't use the unix semantics? Since this is even more restrictive than unix semantics, I'm more inclined to call it a bug until I know it's supposed to be this way. Any ideas? ----- Forwarded message from Mike Fedyk <mfedyk@matchmail.com> ----- From: Mike Fedyk

Hi, I'm running 2.4.9-ac7 with ext3 compiled in, and I ran across this problem. Now that I look back, it makes sence, but it wasn't obvious at first... I wanted to change the journal mode on my / partition, so I changed my fstab to: /dev/hda1 / ext3 defaults,errors=remount-ro,data=journal 0 1 as well as several other partitions, and rebooted. After rebooting I had a read only / that I

I managed to install 0.5d today. Got all 3 of my mounts converted (even '/' though it was a pain in the ass). Now on boot, I see: mounted /dev/hda1 on / EXT3-fs: mounted filesystem with ordered data mode and the exact same thing for /dev/hda3 and /dev/hdb1. they all come up and appear to be working. so is this normal? Or did I manage to screw up somewhere? -- Douglas J. Hunley (Linux User

quotacheck takes longer than fsck on our ext2 fileservers. Is this redundant in ext3? Do I need data=journal? Cheers, Matt

Hello. On a server running 2.4.25, I have the two following errors in the kernel logfile: Unexpected dirty buffer encountered at do_get_write_access:618 (08:11 blocknr 920707) Unexpected dirty buffer encountered at do_get_write_access:618 (08:11 blocknr 920707) Should I worry about them (disk failure, filesystem damage) ? Thanks. As an addition what does the pair '08:11' means ? Is

I have a question regarding a thread in June called "Distinct transactions", which I have included below. It seems to me that the solution is not atomic for daemons opening the file as there is a moment where the filename is not in the directory (i.e. unlink then link). In summary, poster Charlie Woloszynski wanted to update a configuration file in a safe manner (i.e. as a

Can it be that our accounting packages don't work on SMB and only with NT? I would HATE to put a NT Box into the mix. Ruben -- Brooklyn Linux Solutions http://www.mrbrklyn.com http://www.brooklynonline.com 1-718-382-5752

----- Forwarded message from Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> ----- On Wednesday September 19, mfedyk@matchmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:08:32PM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > > On Sunday September 16, mfedyk@matchmail.com wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm trying to

Given that the default journaling mode of ext3 (i.e. ordered), does not guarantee write ordering after a crash, is this journaling mode safe enough to use for a database such as Oracle? If so, how are out of sync writes delt with? Kind regards, Herta Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Hi, I'm using the setup defined for my RH9 box to participate in a Win2000 domain. I have server = domain, etc. This has been working fine for several months. As of this morning, one user can no longer access samba shares. His account settings haven't changed. I am able to access shares from his workstation using my account. I checked the log for his workstation. He has a number of

Take a look at this output from lsof: smbd 11490 0 8u REG 3,3 55296 1136647 Maintenanc.fp5 afpd 31010 0 2u REG 3,3 3207 1136655 auction - envelope.rtf afpd 31010 0 5u REG 3,3 4156 1136656 Word Work File L 1 afpd 31010 0 8u REG 3,3 55296 1136647 Maintenanc.fp5 smbd 31386 0 9u REG 3,3 4156 1136656 Word Work

Hi, well I've deployed ext3 on two machines already and so far it does its job excellently at no (for me) noticable performance loss. I hope it gets incorporated into stock kernels by Linus soon. Anyways I've been hearing about ext3 supporting full-data journalling on a per-file basis but couldn't find any detailed info about it. Even tried grep'ing throught the source. How

This was sent to lkml, I think it may be interesting to this list... ----- Forwarded message from "J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es> ----- Envelope-to: mfedyk@mikef-linux-x86.matchmail.com Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 16:38:49 -0800 From: "J . A . Magallon" <jamagallon@able.es> To: Lista Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: ext3 for

[ If this is explained somewhere else (HOWTO or FAQ), please give me a pointer. ] Is there any way to mix loop-device (and in particular) loop-AES and ext3 together in data journaling mode? Ie. bottom -> to -> top ext3 - loop-AES - ext3 raw - loop-AES - ext3 Or am I shooting myself to leg, I am? BR, Jani -- Jani Averbach

Greetings all, I am curious if anyone knows why utilities such as 'GNU shred' (part of coreutils) and 'wipe' say they are not effective on journalled file systems- especially EXT3. Is it because you can't "guarantee" that the journal has been flushed/wiped (i.e. you have the journal 'between' you and the actual data blocks on the physical disk), or because

Hi, I have a large journal of 400MB (the max for 4k blocks), and I'd like to be able to check how much of it is being used. If it's not being used that much, I'd like to know if the writes *from* the journal to the rest of the disk could be delayed until a certain percentage of the journal has been used. It would be nice to be able to get more contiguous writes to the journal for

Is anyone else getting messages from the lists.digium.com mail server with errors about a mail loop? I've been getting this for the last few weeks, but I don't have any list software on my server. Any ideas?

Hi, I need to migrate about 8Tb of data from a Mac Fibre Channel RAID to by LVM Ext3 Linux Fibre Channel RAID. For speed I planned to connect both RAID's to my CentOS Server and copy the data directly. The Mac volume is formatted as Mac OS Extended (Journaled) it seems that CentOS 5.4 supports reading HFS volumes but not HFSPlus volumes. Is there a way of getting this volume to mount so I

Hi, I have a detailed question about ordered data writes. Suppose we (i.e. intermezzo) does a transaction, which is closed and then followed by an ordered write. Let's assume the ordered write doesn't require new allocation metadata. Is the write still postponed until the first transaction has committed? As far as I can see, prepare_write always starts a transaction, but I'm

looks like you sent this to the wrong person... ----- Forwarded message from JON GERDES <GERDESJ@gkn-whl.co.uk> ----- Envelope-to: mikef@mikef-linux-x86.matchmail.com Delivery-date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:18:43 -0800 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:17:40 +0000 From: "JON GERDES" <GERDESJ@gkn-whl.co.uk> To: <mfedyk@matchmail.com> Subject: Re: win98-samba2.0.7 = Network