Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f3N4TX004584 for linux-xfs-outgoing; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:29:33 -0700 Received: from ibu.chadera.net ([63.145.197.180]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f3N4TXM04581 for ; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:29:33 -0700 Received: from chadera.net (darkstar.keluarga.lan [192.168.100.2]) by ibu.chadera.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA18100; Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:29:15 -0700 Message-ID: <3AE3AFC5.CE9F8386@chadera.net> Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 21:29:57 -0700 From: Ric Tibbetts X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3-xfs i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Martin K. Petersen" CC: Linux XFS List Subject: Re: XFS on LVM References: <3AE275FA.4BABF15@chadera.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Sucess! I re-did the whole thing, minus the LVM patch, and it's working great now. thanks to all who answered. Ric PS: You guys may want to change the documentation that's on your web site. In the FAQ, it addresses the issue of XFS on LVM, and recomends applying the LVM patch. Since it obviously causes breakage (at least for the recent kernel) maybe you should indicate that. I might save someone else some hassle. >>>>> "Ric" == Ric Tibbetts writes: Ric> So would it be better to not use the LVM patch at all, and use Ric> the XFS tree "as is"? Yes, definitely. The XFS tree is at beta6, and we've done QA on that. I wouldn't recommend beta7 for production use.