Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*question\:\s+xfs\s+\+\s+lvm\s+\+\s+kernel\s+2\.4\.9\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*question\:\s+xfs\s+\+\s+lvm\s+\+\s+kernel\s+2\.4\.9\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: Bartosch Pixa <dante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:19:23 +0200; i'm trying to get a kernel 2.4.9 working with XFS and LVM 1.0.1-rc2, i got some errors after aplying the XFS patch (linux-2.4.9-xfs-2001-08-26.patch) to a already LVM patched kernel, the errors were; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00462.html (7,835 bytes)
2. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 20 Sep 2001 13:02:25 -0400; 1.0.1-rc3 should be out next week. I would recommend you hold off until then. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc. mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.linuxcare.com/ SGI XFS; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00468.html (8,503 bytes)
3. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: Bartosch Pixa <bartosch.pixa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 21 Sep 2001 18:19:40 +0200; 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) thx for the help -- Bartosch Pixa, bartosch; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00526.html (8,661 bytes)
4. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 21 Sep 2001 14:35:33 -0400; Hard to tell when I haven't seen the errors. But apart from the snapshotting issues that are on my list of things to fix, no. I don't know of any problems. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Con; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00531.html (8,726 bytes)
5. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: Martin Apel <apel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:26:39 +0200; 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; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00559.html (8,751 bytes)
6. question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 17:19:23 +0200; i'm trying to get a kernel 2.4.9 working with XFS and LVM 1.0.1-rc2, i got some errors after aplying the XFS patch (linux-2.4.9-xfs-2001-08-26.patch) to a already LVM patched kernel, the errors were; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg01140.html (7,835 bytes)
7. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 20 Sep 2001 13:02:25 -0400; 1.0.1-rc3 should be out next week. I would recommend you hold off until then. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc. mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.linuxcare.com/ SGI XFS; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg01146.html (8,503 bytes)
8. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 21 Sep 2001 18:19:40 +0200; 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) thx for the help -- Bartosch Pixa, bartosch; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg01204.html (8,661 bytes)
9. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 21 Sep 2001 14:35:33 -0400; Hard to tell when I haven't seen the errors. But apart from the snapshotting issues that are on my list of things to fix, no. I don't know of any problems. -- Martin K. Petersen, Principal Linux Con; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg01209.html (8,726 bytes)
10. Re: question: xfs + lvm + kernel 2.4.9 (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:26:39 +0200; 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; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg01237.html (8,751 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 10
Page: [1]