[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Does XFS require DevFs?

To: michael <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Joseph Fannin <jhf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Does XFS require DevFs?
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:48:41 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3B2983FF.4050503@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20010614183114.A24007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 21:41 14-6-2001 -0600, michael wrote:
devfs is definitely not reuired--in fact, it's the 1st thing i disable through lilo since I have not spent the time to try to get it to work with any software or hardware RAID devices (by default, it does not recognize software or compaq raid devices).

For desktops you are better of at the moment :-)

The best success I've had so far is to use the release 1 xfs iso for the redhat 7.1 install ( 2.4.2-SGI_XFS_1.0 ). I've had all kinds of trouble trying to get the latest 2.4.5,2.4.6-pre versions to work--xfs installs ok, just other problems cause random freezes and the system hangs. Once the system hangs, I have seen a lot of files on the XFS partitions get zeroed out, or contain binary all throughout them--however, I don't think XFS is to blame for that--just open, half written files when the kernels hard freeze on me.

This sounds like a kernel compiled with gcc 2.96. The symptoms match.
I think I'll add this to the FAQ.

Now I face the task that the 2.4.2 cciss (compaq raid) has a serious memory leak, so I'm back to trying a recent xfs and 2.4.6 kernel.

Something is broken in the CVS at the moment. Don't know what yet.

Good luck--I need it too.

Here is some extra, good luck 2

Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>