HaraldFinn?s <spamcatcher@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I see your point, but the reason for choosing reiser was
> trying to be consistent.
I know it's hindsight now, but the consistency of assumption
(or the assumption of consistency) can be its own issue. ;->
> I figured it might create ever bigger problems
> (from an admin point of view, not the os) to mix the
> filsystems.
Why? Filesystems are distintively separate modules. The
Virtual Filesystem (VFS) subsystem ensures part of that too.
I reguarly mixed Ext3 and XFS on official SGI XFS 2.4
kernels, no issues whatsoever.
The bigger issue is when you run a filesystem that is
_unsupported_ on a kernel distro. ;->
> But IMHO, this seems like a kernel / partition type issue,
> not a filesystem issue..?
There are dozens of various -- and it takes is *1*.
I.e., not only do you have the "disk label" (partition table)
support issues, but then you have the general virtual
filesystem (VFS) subsytem and then specific "filesystem"
support issues. Again, it only takes *1* to cause issues.
I rather not tempt fate, I've seen too much breakage in
1-2+TiB support because of a random disk label, VFS or
filesystem issues that still seem to creep up, almost
repeatedly. The only vendor I ever saw that tested >1TiB
support well was SGI for its XFS kernel 2.4 releases.
> Or maybe I'm reading the output from dmesg incorrectly?
I'd have to research it's error message.
> Good to know that all the other disks are larger than 1.6TB
> too then. ;)
There are issues at 1, 2, 4 and 8TiB. It's clear you're
running into one at 2TiB, which seems to be the "most common"
one.
As I said, I just avoid anything larger than 1TiB, so there's
no chance.
--
Bryan J. Smith Professional, Technical Annoyance b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx http://thebs413.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------------------
*** Speed doesn't kill, difference in speed does ***
