Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*synchronization\s+of\s+XFS\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*synchronization\s+of\s+XFS\s*$/: 78 ]

Total 78 documents matching your query.

21. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:24:19 -0700; yes the partition will be frozen that was probably me, however, i realise now it won't work either. you need to convince the fs to flush all dirty data and metadata --cw; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00353.html (10,060 bytes)
22. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 22:17:53 +0200; Hi Chris. I noticed as much. And guess what - it worked! No delays or anything (extra) needed. It just works fine now. What I'm about to test is a different way of doing it since I can't be arsed to; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00354.html (11,165 bytes)
23. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 13:25:35 -0700; ok cool, that also confirms what people suspected isgoing on really is i still wonder about grub using O_DIRECT though for another reason, that is corruption/nasties when doing block access on a moun; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00355.html (10,657 bytes)
24. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:29:24 +0200; Yeah, but it's only reading it, not writing it. Nasties - could happen I guess. Corruption - don't see exactly how that could happen. Yeah, I can't clock any difference here at all. Checking the FS; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00356.html (12,504 bytes)
25. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: "IKARASHI, Seiichi" <ikarashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 09:42:57 +0900; Good news! Checking the filesystem type can be done in bootloaderInfo.py of booty as follows: import fsset if fsset.isValidXFS(bootDev): // execute xfs_freeze -f for bootDev // execute xfs_freeze -u; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00357.html (10,916 bytes)
26. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 03:22:20 +0200; Excellent. I take it "if fsset.isValidXFS(bootDev)" is code and not pseudo-code. I'll have to try that. I know the "execute xfs_freeze..." is pseudo-code. Hmmm. Wait, I just thought of something actu; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00358.html (11,894 bytes)
27. anaged to fix so..... (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:51:48 -0500 (CDT); Correct - that reads the first few bytes and looks for the xfs magic number. Yep, was going to suggest that. Great, thanks for doing all the work on this. Perhaps when you get it tidied up you can ad; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00360.html (9,869 bytes)
28. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 22:59:17 +0200; Hi Eric. I knew there was a sort-of simple way but I thought that that function was out of booty's context (or something) so that I couldn't call it directly. I'm glad I was wrong. How does this patc; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00361.html (11,155 bytes)
29. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 16:56:44 -0500 (CDT); I'd leave the "it's grub's fault" bit out ;-) no need to start a flamewar. Maybe just something like https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117968 looks good to me. Thanks, -Eric; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00362.html (8,887 bytes)
30. ynchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 00:02:15 +0200; Hi Eric But that's basically mirroring the comment above and it _IS_ XFS specific after all. Besides, I already posted the patch to that exact same bugzilla entry that you just posted (I think that w; /archives/xfs/2004-04/msg00363.html (10,004 bytes)
31. synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:52:44 +0900; How do you guys synchronize a XFS partition? I'm stacking 'cause XFS partitions seem to take longer time than other filesystems like ext3 or reiserfs to really write down to HDD. Repeating sync() do; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00260.html (7,778 bytes)
32. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 22:39:02 -0800; sync() of xfs_freeze depending on what you want it depends what your doing, but for me i never noticed a significant difference sync() should work -- why do you think it does? what kernel version are; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00286.html (8,618 bytes)
33. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:58:50 +0900; Thanks to your follow-up. Thanks. I will try xfs_freeze. Because anaconda/booty fails to install grub into a XFS partition. Firstly anaconda executes "grub-install --just-copy", and executes sync() t; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00291.html (9,838 bytes)
34. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 13:14:54 +0100; That's basically luck I'd say. a 5 minute delay there didn't show any changes for me on some boxen. // Stefan; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00292.html (9,722 bytes)
35. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:41:52 -0800; Don't bother. It won't help for what you want. I suggested it becuase it wasn't clear at the time what you were doing. Why does this mean XFS takes a long time to sync then? grub is braindead then. C; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00293.html (10,034 bytes)
36. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 04:47:51 -0800; OK, I understand now. Calling sync() multuple times is still baindead. How about umount/mount and see if that forces the data to appear? If so, please try a newer kernel as the sync paths were rewrit; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00295.html (9,364 bytes)
37. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:00:21 +0100; Grub does it as a workaround. Or.. Should. Happens with current tree I can tell you that me and .. Steve I think discussed it on IRC a while back and he looked into the POSIX spec and according to P; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00296.html (10,759 bytes)
38. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 05:22:00 -0800; It's stupid. How does sync() multiple times in secession work better than once? Well, not to split hair, sync() means all data needs to hit the disk. Accessing it via a bock device for a mounted file; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00297.html (10,617 bytes)
39. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:26:59 +0100; I never claimed it was smart :) Yup. It does, but you can't unmount and then mount the filesystem if you don't have a seperate /boot partition. Yup. I'd need to check up if O_DIRECT is supported in; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00298.html (11,554 bytes)
40. Re: synchronization of XFS (score: 1): Author:; Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 07:41:46 -0600; sync means the filesystem will look the same after a crash, it does not mean all the data has to hit the disk. In the case of XFS it does not really mean this. Sync will make sure that the journal is; /archives/xfs/2004-03/msg00299.html (11,546 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]