On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:55:28 +0200 "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am Dienstag, 21. August 2018 schrieb Nick Koretsky: > > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:20:43 +0200 > > "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Its tears so far Nik. There are so many differences just in the > > > > ext4's used that one of them should be renamed, they will NOT cross > > > > mount, ext4 disk to ext4 mount. > > > > > > Hi Gene! > > > > > > When you cannot mount the ext4 partions from one another, then there > > > is something very wrong. ext4 can be mounted as ext2 and that should > > > alway work - at least, if the drives and filesystems are ok. > > > > > > > No, you are wrong. There were options added to ext4 which made it > > incompatible with older kernels. And a few years ago they made this > > options default. Debian wheezy kernel (3.2) would not mount ext4 > > created in debian stretch. > > > > > > Hi! > > Now that's a gotcha I did not know. How did it come that this was thought > of beeing a good idea? > > Nik > Yep. Exactly my thought when i spent 3-hours with a server refusing to boot after migration to a new hdd (i used a stretch flash to copy). Who the fuck toughs it was a good idea?!! Why not call it ext5 or ext4a or whatever?!! -- Nick Koretsky (nick.koretsky@xxxxxxxxx) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: trinity-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: trinity-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Read list messages on the web archive: http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/ Please remember not to top-post: http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting
