Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*full\s+XFS\s+system\s+$XFS\s+\/boot\s+\&\s+lilo$\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*full\s+XFS\s+system\s+$XFS\s+\/boot\s+\&\s+lilo$\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:12:35 +1100; Can someone clarify for me whether XFS works ok on a FULL xfs system now? ie does lilo work with an XFS /boot now? -- Daniel Moore dxm@xxxxxxx R&D Software Engineer Phone: +61-3-98348209 SGI Performa; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00018.html (7,385 bytes)
2. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Jason Walker <unseen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 00:58:08 -0500 (EST); Indeed it does work with lilo and stuff. after seeing this e-mail, I decided to move my /boot to xfs and try it. I just did, and it works great. I am using the 2.4pre kernel and I think...2.4test11 u; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00019.html (8,771 bytes)
3. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 3 Jan 2001 05:55:33 GMT; steve lord once said that he has it running fine after some initial problems and thats why i added it to the FAQ - never tested it myself (i think ext2 /boot is no problem and so far much safer) t --; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00020.html (8,925 bytes)
4. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:02:20 -0400; the only recent tools compatability issue would be moving from the beta tree (test5) to a development kernel (where the XFS log format changed so as to be more IRIX-compatible). moving from test11 t; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00022.html (8,908 bytes)
5. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:05:18 -0600; Steve checked the lilo fix in on Sep 20th. http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_iops.c?rev=1.69&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup -- Russell Cattelan cattelan@xx; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00023.html (8,288 bytes)
6. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:33:43 +1100; In addition to Nathan's encouraging words, XFS should be much less volatile than a newly developed FS in this respect ... we are locked into the IRIX XFS MIPS on-disk format, and that is the most lik; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00025.html (8,907 bytes)
7. full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Daniel Moore <dxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:12:35 +1100; Can someone clarify for me whether XFS works ok on a FULL xfs system now? ie does lilo work with an XFS /boot now? -- Daniel Moore dxm@xxxxxxx R&D Software Engineer Phone: +61-3-98348209 SGI Performa; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00397.html (7,385 bytes)
8. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Jason Walker <unseen@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 00:58:08 -0500 (EST); Indeed it does work with lilo and stuff. after seeing this e-mail, I decided to move my /boot to xfs and try it. I just did, and it works great. I am using the 2.4pre kernel and I think...2.4test11 u; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00398.html (8,771 bytes)
9. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Thomas Graichen <news-innominate.list.sgi.xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 3 Jan 2001 05:55:33 GMT; steve lord once said that he has it running fine after some initial problems and thats why i added it to the FAQ - never tested it myself (i think ext2 /boot is no problem and so far much safer) t --; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00399.html (8,925 bytes)
10. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:02:20 -0400; the only recent tools compatability issue would be moving from the beta tree (test5) to a development kernel (where the XFS log format changed so as to be more IRIX-compatible). moving from test11 t; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00401.html (8,908 bytes)
11. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 00:05:18 -0600; Steve checked the lilo fix in on Sep 20th. http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_iops.c?rev=1.69&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup -- Russell Cattelan cattelan@xx; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00402.html (8,288 bytes)
12. Re: full XFS system (XFS /boot & lilo) (score: 1): Author: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:33:43 +1100; In addition to Nathan's encouraging words, XFS should be much less volatile than a newly developed FS in this respect ... we are locked into the IRIX XFS MIPS on-disk format, and that is the most lik; /archives/xfs/2001-01/msg00404.html (8,907 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]