Re: WARNING: ReiserFS (and request for help!)
On 08 Apr 2001 10:59:19 +0100, Matthew Sackman wrote:
> These are exactely the kind of faults that I've been getting. This is
> with a 2.4.2 kernel. Just to let you know, 2.4.3 refused to compile (I
> suspect there was some corruption of the source code), so because things
> were getting worse, I tarred up /home and plonked it on a spare partition
> and have now started a fresh, going back to potato (with long overnight
> upgrades) and ext2.
>
> I'm not gonna try reiserfs until at least 2.4.8 if not later. I'll also
> be very interested to see how work with ext3 develops as there is a
> certain amount of safety built in to ext3 in that if it fails, the
> filing system reverts back to ext2 and so severly limits any damage.
Funny how it goes. Just 5 minutes before I received your mail I was
ready "fixing" my problem. Since reiserfsck is so unstable I ditched the
--rebuild-tree plan. Instead I've tarred up /usr (tar cvzpPf
/opt/usr.tar.gz /usr), then telinit S, stopped all processes having
files open on /usr (lsof |grep usr), then umount /usr.Then I made a new
reiserfs on /usr, rebooted, and untarred (tar xvzpPf /opt/usr.tar.gz).
Since no critical files were affected on my machine (only fortune dat
files), this worked out well.I'll just have to reinstall fortune. I'll
stay with reiser, since my machine is now completely up and running and
I don't expect more user screw-ups that lead to a hard reboot. Hopefully
reiserfs will survive normal operation. Going back to ext2fs just isn't
worth it (I'm praying), this is no production machine.Also, these were
the only errors I encountered, all other disks worked very well.
However, my new laptop will stay on ext2fs for a while.
Good luck to you,
Mario
--
I did not vote for the Austrian government
Reply to: