similar to: tune2fs 1.21 ext2fs_add_journal_inode problem

I don't know R absolutely, but I have to do this work for my diploma. So I'm sorry for strange message below. Please, help me anybody decides this issue. If you need any information, I'll show you all what you need. **error**:<br> > #save > #csv >file.create("C:\\Users\\Sapl\\Desktop\\NATA\\code\\Results\\Created by R\\ab_ret_banks_short_form_10.05.2006.csv")

Dear Ted, I upgraded e2fsprogs and util-linux to the latest versions, as per the instructions on the "ext3 for 2.4" page, to make the switching between ext2-only and ext3-enabled kernels seamless. Now that if the filesystems have not been unmounted cleanly, due to a power failure for example, "fsck -A -a" cannot continue after checking the root filesystem on reboot, issuing

Hi, I must access several hosts through reverse masquerading gateways which are visible on the Internet under a single IP address, with different ports (2, 22, 222, 2222 etc..) forwarding to port 22 of various internal ssh servers, each with its own hostkey. This setup totally confuses the openssh client because it does not store the port numbers in the known_hosts* file, and thus falsely

Add online resize in tunefs.ocfs2 so that user can increase the volume when it is mounted.

Just now I ran tune2fs -j on the root filesystem of a box running 2.6.0-test8. Then I edited /etc/fstab and changed the FS type to from ext2 to ext3, saved the file, and invoked vim on the file again. A few moments after this, the box hung. Unfortunately X was running at the time, and so I don't have any messages to cite. Is this a known problem?

All -- I'm curious is if it safe or even wise to run the following command on a mounted filesystem, namely root (/)? tune2fs -j /dev/hda1 What about if someone goes into single user mode and runs this first? mount -o remount,ro / And then to enable it, runs this? mount -t ext2 -o remount,rw / I assume it is not safe to do so, but one user in my LUG assumes otherwise. Just curious,

Is there any way of making operations like dropping and adding a journal: tune2fs -O ^has_journal /dev/local/my_dev and tune2fs -o journal_data -j -J device=LABEL=my-journal-device /dev/local/my_dev more verbose? It would be nice to know what's going on, since just sitting there can be quite unnerving! In the end, it all worked ok, but actually seeing progress can be soothing. -- Ralf

Hi, Is it safe to run tune2fs -c -1 -i 0 /dev/sda2 on mounted file system Basically, this is a command to disable fsck based on reboot count & last fsck time. -- Regards, Sherin

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> wrote: ># rpm -qf `which tune2fs` >e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64 That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter. > # cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.5 (Final) > # uname -a > Linux

On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as > tune2fs against ext4. tune2fs operates on the content of a block device. A logical volume containing an ext4 system is exactly the same as a partition containing an ext4 filesystem.

Not in my testing especially about the time of 6.4. On Apr 22, 2016 5:16 PM, "Gordon Messmer" <gordon.messmer at gmail.com> wrote: > On 04/22/2016 01:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > >> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as >> tune2fs against ext4. >> > > tune2fs operates on the content of a block device. A logical volume

On 04/30/2016 11:06 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote: >> ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its >> face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else. >> > > As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on this list. There are only two > things that require reboot in

uptime=insecurity. Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime won't matter when your server gets compromised. On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: > tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as > tune2fs against ext4. > > Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM,

ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else. On 4/30/2016 11:33 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote: >> uptime=insecurity. > This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins > still left around who remember

I have an ext4 filesystem for which I'm trying to use "tune2fs -l". Here is the listing of the filesystem from the "mount" command: # mount | grep share /dev/mapper/VolGroup_Share-LogVol_Share on /share type ext4 (rw,noatime,nodiratime,usrjquota=aquota.user,jqfmt=vfsv0,data=writeback,nobh,barrier=0) When I try to run "tune2fs" on it, I get the following error:

Hello syslinux, Merry Christmas! These patches will make extlinux work with umounted ext2/3/4 filesystem, for example: $ extlinux -i /dev/sdXN or $ extlinux -i file_block Also it can work with something like: $ extlinux /dev/sdXN --reset-adv or $ extlinux file_block --reset-adv We don't use a new option (I planed to use "-d" but it is already in use), it will check whether the

In fact the thing I really want to achieve is to be able to find the values and the algorithm that enable me to reproduce the percentage given by df (and to understand deeply what it means). Why do I need it? Because I'm trying to write some script to do capacity planning and space problem forecast. Currently I don't really know which values I should use to do it. (I could use the

On Sat, April 30, 2016 12:56 pm, William Warren wrote: > ALL systems need patching so obsessing about uptime is insecurity on its > face. It doe not matter if it is windows or linux or anything else. > As I said, I feel I hear MS Widows admins on this list. There are only two things that require reboot in UNIX and Linux Worlds. Kernel patches or rather installation of patched kernel

On 9/16/13 5:16 AM, Nicolas Michel wrote: > Hello guys, > > I have some difficulties to understand what really are the numbers > behing "df" and tune2fs. You'll find the output of tune2fs and df > below, on which my maths are based. > > Here are my maths: > > A tune2fs on an ext3 FS tell me the FS size is 3284992 block large. It > also tell me that

tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4. Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ># rpm -qf `which