Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*xfs\.fsck\s+change\s+that\s+is\s+unhelpful\s*$/: 8 ]

Total 8 documents matching your query.

1. xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: "Linda A. Walsh" <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:48:01 -0700
Some time ago, when I upgraded a system, I ran into problems when it hit a file system that was offline. It wasn't a critical partition, so it normally wouldn't have been an issue, but somewhere alon
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00147.html (9,269 bytes)

2. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:52:40 +1000
fsck.xfs is behaving identically to e2fsck when presented with an invalid block device - it exits with an error of 8, which is defined as "operational error" in the e2fsck man page. If the device is
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00149.html (8,431 bytes)

3. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 19:03:20 -0700
Dave Chinner wrote: On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:48:01PM -0700, Linda A. Walsh wrote: Some time ago, when I upgraded a system, I ran into problems when it hit a file system that was offline. It wasn't
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00150.html (8,794 bytes)

4. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: "Hans-Peter Jansen" <hpj@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:54:27 +0200
Linda, you're barking at the wrong tree, IMHO. If xfs would tolerate any configuration failure, a lot of people would complain for a _good_ reason. Of course, most of the attending audience is being
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00154.html (10,469 bytes)

5. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 00:43:41 +0200
I would suggest using autofs, so that you can keep fstab to an absolut minimum. Except for devices related to booting, i personally mount everything either with autofs or manually(In that case it's n
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00155.html (9,097 bytes)

6. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:55:05 +1000
For whom? It wasn't a feature - it was simply to ensure that initscripts worked. There was simply no reason for it to do anything else until someone discovered that their booot problems were caused b
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00159.html (10,537 bytes)

7. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Linda Walsh <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:26:20 -0700
It wasn't a feature - it was simply to ensure that initscripts worked. There was simply no reason for it to do anything else until someone discovered that their booot problems were caused by non-stan
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00160.html (11,939 bytes)

8. Re: xfs.fsck change that is unhelpful (score: 1)
Author: Stan Hoeppner <stan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:44:08 -0500
Linda Walsh put forth on 8/15/2010 9:26 PM: I do. Who wouldn't? And why not? /dev/sda6 /home xfs defaults 0 0 /dev/sda7 /samba xfs defaults 0 0 The device mount order is defined by the lines in the f
/archives/xfs/2010-08/msg00163.html (10,040 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu