On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 22:16 +0100, James Pearson wrote: > On 17/07/06, Alex Palenschat <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I recently took over a x86_64 CentOS 4.0 server running an "unsupported" > > kernel. On examining the box it seems that perhaps it is because of the > > use of xfs and netatalk. I would like to update the box to 4.3. I think > > I can do away with the netatalk, but doing away with xfs would require a > > substantial amount of work. > > > > Questions: > > > > 1: In reading the archive of this list there was a post regarding the > > kernel in the Testing repo supporting xfs. Is this the case and if so, > > would it be a "bad idea" to run that kernel without essentially runnning > > a test box using all packages from the testing repo? > > 2: Does the same kernel include netatalk support? It would be easier to > > leave the netatalk in place if that were so. > > 3: Should I just bite the bullet and get rid of the xfs? I'm not sure > > what predicated the choice of filesystem in the first place. > > > > Any thoughts/comments would be welcome, > > If you don't need netatalk, then upgrade to 4.3 and use the > kernel-module-xfs module from > http://dev.centos.org/centos/4/testing/x86_64/RPMS/ > > This has more up to date XFS code than the centosplus "unsupported" kernel. > > James Pearson > _______________________________________________ Agreed :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
