xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9

To: Bartosch Pixa <bartosch.pixa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9
From: Martin Apel <apel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:26:39 +0200
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1001089180.19204.4.camel@bad>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 21 Sep 2001, Bartosch Pixa wrote:

> On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 19:02, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> > >>>>> "Bartosch" == Bartosch Pixa <dante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > 
> > Bartosch> i'm trying to get a kernel 2.4.9 working with XFS and LVM
> > Bartosch> 1.0.1-rc2, i got some errors after aplying the XFS patch
> > Bartosch> (linux-2.4.9-xfs-2001-08-26.patch) to a already LVM patched
> > Bartosch> kernel, the errors were only in the LVM parts of the kernel,
> > Bartosch> so my question is now if it's sane to ignore these errors or
> > Bartosch> if there are issues with XFS and LVM.
> > 
> > 1.0.1-rc3 should be out next week.  I would recommend you hold off
> > until then.
> 
> thx for the info, i sure will, but still there is the question if there
> are any problems with lvm and xfs (the rejecter files during the patch
> for example)

I am running a file server with 2.4.5 + LVM + XFS on a hardware RAID 5
array without any problems. When applying the LVM patch I had only one
reject in the area of software RAID, which I didn't care about much, 
as we don't use that. This setup runs very stable in a production 
environment for roughly six weeks now.

Greetings,

Martin


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