f



[fc9] HELP no more Xwindows! libtermcap.so.2 cannot open shared object

I was trying to update firefox and ran into some fc6 rpms installed on my 
fc9 platform so I could not update firefox. As it turns out, firefox itself 
was an fc6 rpm!

So this time I updated the fc6 file that was causing the problem, as well 
as the yelp fc6 file that was stopping me from doing that, in est, this is 
what I did:

sudo yum update gnome-doc-utils yelp firefox

Now this actually worked with what appeard to be some minor errors at the 
end, like this:

/bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libtermcap.so.2: cannot open 
shared object file: No such file or directory
error: %postun(nspr-4.6.7-0.6.1.fc6.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
error: %preun(yelp-2.16.0-13.fc6.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127

This did not seem too bad but now I have no Xwindows at all! Now when I try 
startx, I get this error and no more windows:

/bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libtermcap.so.2 cannot open 
shared object file: No such file or directory

Oh Christ, what did I do and more important, how can I get my Xwindows back 
with beryl and all that cool stuff, all gone! Please help.


-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 1:05:07 AM
comp.os.linux 3406 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

43 Replies
1250 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 1

Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9CF5CC00748F7MyBigKitty@216.196.97.131: 

> Oh Christ, what did I do and more important, how can I get my Xwindows
> back with beryl and all that cool stuff, all gone! Please help.

What a can of worms I opened up here. Bash no longer works right, the clear 
command cannot be found. I can start X with Xorg in the /usr/bin/ directory 
but all it does is make a black screen with a big X cursor, no desktop or 
anything.

Looking at rpm -q xorg gives
xorg-x11-server1.1.1-47.10.fc6

More fedora core 6 stuff on my fc9 machine!

I am probably going to have to reinstall but I have so many configs on this 
machine that I need to keep, this is a nightmare.

Well, yum is really working good now, I just updated bash and it also 
updated ncurses to go with it and so clear works again. Wonder if I can 
update my x server this way. Wish me luck and Please, Please give me 
advice!

Thank you.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 1:26:43 AM
Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in news:Xns9CF5CFA9C6554MyBigKitty@
216.196.97.131:

> Well, yum is really working good now, I just updated bash and it also 
> updated ncurses to go with it and so clear works again. Wonder if I can 
> update my x server this way. Wish me luck and Please, Please give me 
> advice!
> 
> Thank you.

I just did a "sudo yum update xorg*" out of frustration, I want my 
xwindows back and Aho was right, there *are* a lot of fc6 packages on my 
machine, even the x11 server itself is fc6 and it worked so good too, 
with beryl working and the spinning cube and all that stuff. Wahhhhh!

There were some web pages that suggested updating the entire x system as 
a groupupdate but that did not work at all, no group to update so I 
resorted to:
sudo yum update xorg-x11
and man did that ever start something huge! It found a ton of stuff to 
update and then dependencies to resolve, it has been going at this for 15 
minutes already and finally croaked, this is the result.

--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.4 is needed by package livna-
config-display
Error: Missing Dependency: libcrypto.so.6 is needed by package BitchX
Error: Missing Dependency: xine-lib = 1.1.6 is needed by package xine-
lib-extras-nonfree
Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC.so.7 is needed by package vlc
Error: Missing Dependency: libwnck-1.so.18 is needed by package 
brightside
Error: Missing Dependency: libwnck-1.so.18 is needed by package cgwd
Error: Missing Dependency: libdvdread.so.3 is needed by package 
gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Error: Missing Dependency: libdvdread.so.3 is needed by package vlc
Error: Missing Dependency: liblber-2.3.so.0 is needed by package pine
Error: Missing Dependency: libldap-2.3.so.0 is needed by package pine
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.4 is needed by package 
gstreamer08-python
Error: Missing Dependency: libwnck-1.so.18 is needed by package heliodor
Error: Missing Dependency: python(abi) = 2.4 is needed by package beryl-
settings
Error: Missing Dependency: libssl.so.6 is needed by package ckermit
Error: Missing Dependency: libcrypto.so.6 is needed by package ckermit
Error: Missing Dependency: libssl.so.6 is needed by package BitchX
Error: Missing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.3 is needed by package vlc
Error: Missing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.3 is needed by package mplayer
Error: Missing Dependency: libFLAC.so.7 is needed by package gstreamer08-
plugins
Error: Missing Dependency: libkdecorations.so.1 is needed by package 
aquamarine
Error: Missing Dependency: akode = 2.0.1 is needed by package akode-
extras
Error: Missing Dependency: libmpcdec.so.3 is needed by package mplayer-
gui
[ohmster@ohmster ~]$

And that is it, it will not update. Dam. Can anybody break this down into 
bite sized pieces to update somehow? I really want my xwindows back or 
should I just try to update with an fc10 set of discs?

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 2:16:47 AM
On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:16:47 -0600, Ohmster wrote:

> Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in news:Xns9CF5CFA9C6554MyBigKitty@
> 216.196.97.131:
> 
>> Well, yum is really working good now, I just updated bash and it also
>> updated ncurses to go with it and so clear works again. Wonder if I can
>> update my x server this way. Wish me luck and Please, Please give me
>> advice!
>> 
>> Thank you.
> 
> I just did a "sudo yum update xorg*" out of frustration, I want my
> xwindows back and Aho was right, there *are* a lot of fc6 packages on my
> machine, even the x11 server itself is fc6 and it worked so good too,
> with beryl working and the spinning cube and all that stuff. Wahhhhh!

<SNIP>

Is there some valid reason that you don't just back up your data/home and 
do a clean install of Fedora 12?  I mean, really.  Why muck around with 
such ancient crap software, which you have apparently corrupted beyond 
any fixing, when it is relatively simple task to just start over with the 
latest version and restore your data?  

Can you answer that simple question please?


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/4/2010 3:32:31 AM
In <pan.2010.01.04.03.32.58@moria.lan>, on 04 Jan 2010 03:32:31 GMT, Dan 
C, youmustbejoking@lan.invalid wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:16:47 -0600, Ohmster wrote:
>
>> Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in news:Xns9CF5CFA9C6554MyBigKitty@
>> 216.196.97.131:
>> 
>>> Well, yum is really working good now, I just updated bash and it also
>>> updated ncurses to go with it and so clear works again. Wonder if I can
>>> update my x server this way. Wish me luck and Please, Please give me
>>> advice!
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>> 
>> I just did a "sudo yum update xorg*" out of frustration, I want my
>> xwindows back and Aho was right, there *are* a lot of fc6 packages on my
>> machine, even the x11 server itself is fc6 and it worked so good too,
>> with beryl working and the spinning cube and all that stuff. Wahhhhh!
>
><SNIP>
>
> Is there some valid reason that you don't just back up your data/home and 
> do a clean install of Fedora 12?  I mean, really.  Why muck around with 
> such ancient crap software, which you have apparently corrupted beyond 
> any fixing, when it is relatively simple task to just start over with the 
> latest version and restore your data?  
>
> Can you answer that simple question please?

  This is just his normal M.O.  

  He ran RH7 (or was it RH9?) *way* past EOL, and then blamed everyone 
but himself for his machine getting 0wn3d, all the while denying that 
his intruders had root.  After all, just because your machine is 
cracked, that doesn't *necessarily* mean the cracker has root.

  Everyone said, "Backup data, wipe, upgrade."  He repeated numerous 
times that his configurations were just SOO customized and his servers 
were so mission critical, that he simply couldn't take the machine 
offline for the amount of time necessary to do all that.  Weeks and 
weeks of whining, denying, and then FINALLY, he did what he needed to 
do, asking step-by-step how-to through the entire process.

  You'd think someone who's been running RH/Fedora for as many years as 
he has would have even the tiniest of clues.  Nope.  'Fraid not.

  A few years later, the LVM issue arose.  (No this ISN'T the first 
time.)  You'd think he would have saved all the Usenet posts that 
explained how to proceed.  He responded to all of them with, "Saved.  
I'll look at this in more detail as I have time."  Here he is again 
complaining about LVM.  Guess he never got time to look at all those 
posts he saved.

"* One or two days is the typical turn around time at Paul's PC Works."

"Paul's PC Works" apparently refers to the fact that his Windows machine 
functions to his satisfaction.


0
elephant
1/4/2010 7:18:05 AM
On Jan 4, 2:18=A0am, elephant <eleph...@ohmster.invalid> wrote:
> In <pan.2010.01.04.03.32...@moria.lan>, on 04 Jan 2010 03:32:31 GMT, Dan

> > Is there some valid reason that you don't just back up your data/home a=
nd
> > do a clean install of Fedora 12? =A0I mean, really. =A0Why muck around =
with
> > such ancient crap software, which you have apparently corrupted beyond
> > any fixing, when it is relatively simple task to just start over with t=
he
> > latest version and restore your data? =A0
>
> > Can you answer that simple question please?
>
> =A0 This is just his normal M.O. =A0
>
> =A0 He ran RH7 (or was it RH9?) *way* past EOL, and then blamed everyone
> but himself for his machine getting 0wn3d, all the while denying that
> his intruders had root. =A0After all, just because your machine is
> cracked, that doesn't *necessarily* mean the cracker has root.

Now, now. Be nice. It seems clear that the original poster believed
that you can pick and  choose individual components to upgrade over an
extended period, and not run into dependency hell. That doesn't work
well, and it *cannot* be ignored over time.

Ohmster, *stop playing with updating one package at a time". How did
you *get* all these FC6 packages left behind? Did you update to FC 9
by picking and choosing individual packages from FC 9 to update to,
and never bothered with the FC6 packages? It's *nasty* trying to go
back and resolve those dependencies one at a time, as you are
learning. Run a "yum check-update", and start going down the list of
update packages one at a time. That should let you get most of the
dependencies, and then you can run "yum list extras" and re-run "yum
check update" to get a list of targets to try on the next round, and
targets that should be flushed or updated that come from other
locations.
0
Nico
1/4/2010 12:15:24 PM
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:18:05 -0700, elephant wrote:

> In <pan.2010.01.04.03.32.58@moria.lan>, on 04 Jan 2010 03:32:31 GMT, Dan
> C, youmustbejoking@lan.invalid wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:16:47 -0600, Ohmster wrote:
>>
>>> Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9CF5CFA9C6554MyBigKitty@ 216.196.97.131:
>>> 
>>>> Well, yum is really working good now, I just updated bash and it also
>>>> updated ncurses to go with it and so clear works again. Wonder if I
>>>> can update my x server this way. Wish me luck and Please, Please give
>>>> me advice!
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>> 
>>> I just did a "sudo yum update xorg*" out of frustration, I want my
>>> xwindows back and Aho was right, there *are* a lot of fc6 packages on
>>> my machine, even the x11 server itself is fc6 and it worked so good
>>> too, with beryl working and the spinning cube and all that stuff.
>>> Wahhhhh!
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>> Is there some valid reason that you don't just back up your data/home
>> and do a clean install of Fedora 12?  I mean, really.  Why muck around
>> with such ancient crap software, which you have apparently corrupted
>> beyond any fixing, when it is relatively simple task to just start over
>> with the latest version and restore your data?
>>
>> Can you answer that simple question please?
> 
>   This is just his normal M.O.
> 
>   He ran RH7 (or was it RH9?) *way* past EOL, and then blamed everyone
> but himself for his machine getting 0wn3d, all the while denying that
> his intruders had root.  After all, just because your machine is
> cracked, that doesn't *necessarily* mean the cracker has root.
> 
>   Everyone said, "Backup data, wipe, upgrade."  He repeated numerous
> times that his configurations were just SOO customized and his servers
> were so mission critical, that he simply couldn't take the machine
> offline for the amount of time necessary to do all that.  Weeks and
> weeks of whining, denying, and then FINALLY, he did what he needed to
> do, asking step-by-step how-to through the entire process.
> 
>   You'd think someone who's been running RH/Fedora for as many years as
> he has would have even the tiniest of clues.  Nope.  'Fraid not.
> 
>   A few years later, the LVM issue arose.  (No this ISN'T the first
> time.)  You'd think he would have saved all the Usenet posts that
> explained how to proceed.  He responded to all of them with, "Saved.
> I'll look at this in more detail as I have time."  Here he is again
> complaining about LVM.  Guess he never got time to look at all those
> posts he saved.
> 
> "* One or two days is the typical turn around time at Paul's PC Works."
> 
> "Paul's PC Works" apparently refers to the fact that his Windows machine
> functions to his satisfaction.

Yeah, I thought I remembered something very similar to the current 
"problems".  Strange how some folks just refuse to learn from past 
mistakes.  <shrug>


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/4/2010 1:59:12 PM
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2010.01.04.03.32.58@moria.lan: 

> Is there some valid reason that you don't just back up your data/home
> and do a clean install of Fedora 12?  I mean, really.  Why muck around
> with such ancient crap software, which you have apparently corrupted
> beyond any fixing, when it is relatively simple task to just start
> over with the latest version and restore your data?  
> 
> Can you answer that simple question please?
> 

Yes Bill. Time and wanting to save my old drive and use it to take configs 
and files from. My original disk is VolGroup00 as an lvm disk and Fedora 
will install to the new disk as VolGroup00 thus making it impossible for me 
to mount both drives and get at my old data that I need. If I can find a 
way around that, I will do it. Maybe ghost the image, I don't know what to 
do, recommendations please?

You are right though, this thing is a hodgepodge of mismatched rpm files 
from different releases. I think that happened when I used a web page to 
install and configure beryl, it worked and worked very well, but it had me 
changing repos and installing mismathed libs is all I can think of.


-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 3:30:59 PM
elephant <elephant@ohmster.invalid> wrote in 
news:hk35i4.lvg.elephant@ohmster.invalid:

[..]
>   A few years later, the LVM issue arose.  (No this ISN'T the first 
> time.)  You'd think he would have saved all the Usenet posts that 
> explained how to proceed.  He responded to all of them with, "Saved.  
> I'll look at this in more detail as I have time."  Here he is again 
> complaining about LVM.  Guess he never got time to look at all those 
> posts he saved.
[..]

Wow, you really do have an elephant's memory. I do have the lvm docs saved, 
and they are for how to rescue an lvm disc that was damaged. I have nothing 
on how to backup an lvm disc or install fedora to a different disk other 
than VolGroup00.

I come here for help, most people are helpful and polite. If someone knows 
how to install fedora without putting it on the VolGropup00, then I am all 
ears. I need this kind of help, hopefully from someone that has done it 
before.

I am begriming to see that there is too much of a mis match in packages to 
really save this install. So I want to go clean and somehow save the disk 
that is currently running and get stuff off of it. I am not a Linux Admin 
nor do I work with Linux every day. If you want to be helpful I for sure 
will appreciate and pay attention, do what you recommend, and tell you how 
it went. If you just want to beat up on somebody, I really don't have time 
for it fellow.

Cheers.
-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 3:38:31 PM
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1e46759-4075-4e8f-
a30f-3e8bddeded85@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:

> 
> Now, now. Be nice. It seems clear that the original poster believed
> that you can pick and  choose individual components to upgrade over an
> extended period, and not run into dependency hell. That doesn't work
> well, and it *cannot* be ignored over time.
> 
> Ohmster, *stop playing with updating one package at a time". How did
> you *get* all these FC6 packages left behind? Did you update to FC 9
> by picking and choosing individual packages from FC 9 to update to,
> and never bothered with the FC6 packages? It's *nasty* trying to go
> back and resolve those dependencies one at a time, as you are
> learning. Run a "yum check-update", and start going down the list of
> update packages one at a time. That should let you get most of the
> dependencies, and then you can run "yum list extras" and re-run "yum
> check update" to get a list of targets to try on the next round, and
> targets that should be flushed or updated that come from other
> locations.
> 

Late for work, have to leave a quick reply now, more later.

I wanted beryl and the spinning cube really bad and found a step by step 
web site that had me add non-standard repos to my yum repo list. I 
followed the instructions and got a really, really nice working beryl 3D 
desktop with all the bells and whistles. Since I did not change my repos 
back (Forgot?), a lot of stuff got updated from those repos, especially 
with dependencies. I tried to do a group update with Gnome desktop and 
with X windows system, all failed multiple dependencies so I really think 
that it is time to get some new fedora discs and do this right.

I can upgrade or install fresh, would probably not be in my best interest 
to install fresh. I am just really worried that fedora 12 or whatever we 
are up to, will install as VolGroup00 and then I will not be able to 
mount my old system disk to pull configs and files from it. This may be a 
ways off in the future but not too long, got a nice 400Gb drive right 
here for it. Might have to try your suggestions in the meantime. Now that 
Firefox is really updated to version 3, it won't run, gives error:

[ohmster@ohmster ~]$ firefox
/usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/firefox: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/xulrunner-
1.9pre/libxul.so: undefined symbol: sqlite3_prepare_v2
[ohmster@ohmster ~]$ 

If I could get firefox to work, that would be nice as I could use it 
until I can get past this install issue. I use my Linux box as a router, 
web, and ftp server as well as a local mail server so taking it down for 
a long time is not something I really want to do but will if I have to.

Thank you for being kind. Will check back here later.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/4/2010 3:48:06 PM
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:30:59 -0500, Ohmster <root@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:

> and files from. My original disk is VolGroup00 as an lvm disk and Fedora

man vgrename.  May need to edit /etc/fstab before rebooting, if
it's still using /dev/mapper/??? entries, instead of labels or
uuids.

> will install to the new disk as VolGroup00 thus making it impossible for me

I haven't used the fedora installer.  I expect a little digging
would show that you can override the volume group name.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

-- 
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
0
David
1/4/2010 3:50:33 PM
On Jan 4, 10:48=A0am, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote in news:c1e46759-4075-4e8f-
> a30f-3e8bddede...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Now, now. Be nice. It seems clear that the original poster believed
> > that you can pick and =A0choose individual components to upgrade over a=
n
> > extended period, and not run into dependency hell. That doesn't work
> > well, and it *cannot* be ignored over time.
>
> > Ohmster, *stop playing with updating one package at a time". How did
> > you *get* all these FC6 packages left behind? Did you update to FC 9
> > by picking and choosing individual packages from FC 9 to update to,
> > and never bothered with the FC6 packages? It's *nasty* trying to go
> > back and resolve those dependencies one at a time, as you are
> > learning. Run a "yum check-update", and start going down the list of
> > update packages one at a time. That should let you get most of the
> > dependencies, and then you can run "yum list extras" and re-run "yum
> > check update" to get a list of targets to try on the next round, and
> > targets that should be flushed or updated that come from other
> > locations.
>
> Late for work, have to leave a quick reply now, more later.
>
> I wanted beryl and the spinning cube really bad and found a step by step
> web site that had me add non-standard repos to my yum repo list. I
> followed the instructions and got a really, really nice working beryl 3D
> desktop with all the bells and whistles. Since I did not change my repos
> back (Forgot?), a lot of stuff got updated from those repos, especially
> with dependencies. I tried to do a group update with Gnome desktop and
> with X windows system, all failed multiple dependencies so I really think
> that it is time to get some new fedora discs and do this right.

Oh, dear gods. That explains it. I wish you'd mentioned using oddball
repositories earlier.

Cleaning up that kind of mess would take me a day, with good
bandwidth, and I'd bill you for it if you needed it that badly. But
you should be able to add the new disk, set it up with a live CD, set
up LVM on the new disk with a different Volume and Group name, or use
Fedora disks to *manually* configure disks and set them up
appropriately.

> I can upgrade or install fresh, would probably not be in my best interest
> to install fresh. I am just really worried that fedora 12 or whatever we
> are up to, will install as VolGroup00 and then I will not be able to
> mount my old system disk to pull configs and files from it. This may be a
> ways off in the future but not too long, got a nice 400Gb drive right
> here for it. Might have to try your suggestions in the meantime. Now that
> Firefox is really updated to version 3, it won't run, gives error:
>
> [ohmster@ohmster ~]$ firefox
> /usr/lib/firefox-3.0b5/firefox: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/xulrunner-
> 1.9pre/libxul.so: undefined symbol: sqlite3_prepare_v2
> [ohmster@ohmster ~]$
>
> If I could get firefox to work, that would be nice as I could use it
> until I can get past this install issue. I use my Linux box as a router,
> web, and ftp server as well as a local mail server so taking it down for
> a long time is not something I really want to do but will if I have to.
>
> Thank you for being kind. Will check back here later.

Good luck. *I* think you need another box.

Can you get VNC working to another box where you can use Firefox?
0
Nico
1/4/2010 3:57:53 PM
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfa3981f-5d53-47e8-
8bb8-45fbc8e58d73@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> Oh, dear gods. That explains it. I wish you'd mentioned using oddball
> repositories earlier.
> 
> Cleaning up that kind of mess would take me a day, with good
> bandwidth, and I'd bill you for it if you needed it that badly. But
> you should be able to add the new disk, set it up with a live CD, set
> up LVM on the new disk with a different Volume and Group name, or use
> Fedora disks to *manually* configure disks and set them up
> appropriately.

Nico,

Hah! I did not see your offer in the begriming of this paragraph. Thank 
you for the offer, that would be pretty neat, you clean it up remotely 
with my cable connection and I pay for the service, but, to me, Linux is 
about the learning. l love it because I learn new things. I just copied 
the lvm man page to a text file so that I can read it more easily with a 
list of all of the major lvm tools that I will be able to use. I also 
found the FAQ at TLDP, LVM HOWTO, and found some good reasons to use lvm 
in Chapter 2. What is Logical Volume Management?, Section 2.2. Benefits 
of Logical Volume Management on a Small System actually makes good sense 
and I will use this as a tool for my next install so that I know what the 
heck I am doing this time and can name and create the volumes as 
necessary, label them appropriately, and size them accordingly. I 
especially like that you can move the space around if you need to or even 
add another disk to the file system and it just blends right into the 
file system as a whole and can then be doled out where it is needed most, 
in more than one area if need be. This sure beats the old method of 
splicing in a new drive under "\home" like I used to do.

Maybe lvm is not so bad, once you get to understand it and use it 
properly. Oh and thanks for the cleanup offer. That was very generous as 
a task like that might tale forever, even though you do know what you are 
doing.
-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/5/2010 1:38:35 AM
On Jan 4, 8:38=A0pm, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfa3981f-5d53-47e8-
> 8bb8-45fbc8e58...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Oh, dear gods. That explains it. I wish you'd mentioned using oddball
> > repositories earlier.
>
> > Cleaning up that kind of mess would take me a day, with good
> > bandwidth, and I'd bill you for it if you needed it that badly. But
> > you should be able to add the new disk, set it up with a live CD, set
> > up LVM on the new disk with a different Volume and Group name, or use
> > Fedora disks to *manually* configure disks and set them up
> > appropriately.
>
> Nico,
>
> Hah! I did not see your offer in the begriming of this paragraph. Thank
> you for the offer, that would be pretty neat, you clean it up remotely
> with my cable connection and I pay for the service, but, to me, Linux is
> about the learning. l love it because I learn new things. I just copied

It's also enlightened self-interest. I'm doing small consulting jobs
right now while looking for new work. (The last workplace was good in
many ways, bad for me personally in others, and the work I had lined
up next didn't happen: so I'm hunting. In *this* economy, arrrrgghhh!)

> the lvm man page to a text file so that I can read it more easily with a
> list of all of the major lvm tools that I will be able to use. I also

Oh, sensible. And by the way, many older man pages look *AWFUL* with
the default "LANG=3Den_US.UTF-8" settings. I often find it handy to
reset my LANG with "export LANG=3DC" to fix manpage output. This also
fixes the case insensitivity problem of the "sort" command. As a hint,
I *HATE* that en_US.UTF-8 is case insensitive. Hate, hate, hate, hate.

> found the FAQ at TLDP, LVM HOWTO, and found some good reasons to use lvm
> in Chapter 2. What is Logical Volume Management?, Section 2.2. Benefits
> of Logical Volume Management on a Small System actually makes good sense
> and I will use this as a tool for my next install so that I know what the
> heck I am doing this time and can name and create the volumes as
> necessary, label them appropriately, and size them accordingly. I
> especially like that you can move the space around if you need to or even
> add another disk to the file system and it just blends right into the
> file system as a whole and can then be doled out where it is needed most,
> in more than one area if need be. This sure beats the old method of
> splicing in a new drive under "\home" like I used to do.

??? Be cautious there. It expands the apparent *partition* easily, and
it's very handy this way. But resizing the filesystem is trickier.
gparted, or Gnome Parted, is pretty good for this, but that takes X
Windows working to run and is thus trickier to use in a stripped down
server setup.

> Maybe lvm is not so bad, once you get to understand it and use it
> properly. Oh and thanks for the cleanup offer. That was very generous as
> a task like that might tale forever, even though you do know what you are
> doing.

Oh, it's cool and lightweight. It does have a slight performance cost
over using good hardware RAID or raw partitions. And the snapshot
utility is *wonderful*, for doing filesystem snapshots of databases
and doing the backups from the snapshot. I used to use that on MySQL
servers to speed backup. Using it in virtualized operating systems is
also usually pretty silly, since you can turn off the virtualized OS
and manipulate its disk space directly from the virtual server.
0
Nico
1/5/2010 12:32:21 PM
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:38:35 -0600, Ohmster wrote:

> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote in news:bfa3981f-5d53-47e8-
> 8bb8-45fbc8e58d73@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> 
>> Oh, dear gods. That explains it. I wish you'd mentioned using oddball
>> repositories earlier.
>> 
>> Cleaning up that kind of mess would take me a day, with good bandwidth,
>> and I'd bill you for it if you needed it that badly. But you should be
>> able to add the new disk, set it up with a live CD, set up LVM on the
>> new disk with a different Volume and Group name, or use Fedora disks to
>> *manually* configure disks and set them up appropriately.
> 
> Nico,
> 
> Hah! I did not see your offer in the begriming of this paragraph. Thank
> you for the offer, that would be pretty neat, you clean it up remotely
> with my cable connection and I pay for the service, but, to me, Linux is
> about the learning. l love it because I learn new things. I just copied
> the lvm man page to a text file so that I can read it more easily with a
> list of all of the major lvm tools that I will be able to use. I also
> found the FAQ at TLDP, LVM HOWTO, and found some good reasons to use lvm
> in Chapter 2. What is Logical Volume Management?, Section 2.2. Benefits
> of Logical Volume Management on a Small System actually makes good sense
> and I will use this as a tool for my next install so that I know what
> the heck I am doing this time and can name and create the volumes as
> necessary, label them appropriately, and size them accordingly. I
> especially like that you can move the space around if you need to or
> even add another disk to the file system and it just blends right into
> the file system as a whole and can then be doled out where it is needed
> most, in more than one area if need be. This sure beats the old method
> of splicing in a new drive under "\home" like I used to do.
> 
> Maybe lvm is not so bad, once you get to understand it and use it
> properly. Oh and thanks for the cleanup offer. That was very generous as
> a task like that might tale forever, even though you do know what you
> are doing.

What exactly is it that you do, that requires management of huge disk 
space?  Why would you need LVM, or to "splice in a new drive" on a normal 
home system?

Seriously, what are you saving?  How much volume are you doing, anyway?


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/5/2010 2:00:49 PM
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
news:pan.2010.01.05.14.01.19@moria.lan: 

> What exactly is it that you do, that requires management of huge disk 
> space?  Why would you need LVM, or to "splice in a new drive" on a
> normal home system?
> 

Nothing really Dan. I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of an LVM 
filesystem. Apparently Fedora thinks everyone should have one as it is 
their default install method. I would much rather keep it simple like 
before with an ext3 filesystem instead of this lvm stuff.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/5/2010 2:52:52 PM
Ohmster wrote:
> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.01.05.14.01.19@moria.lan: 
> 
>> What exactly is it that you do, that requires management of huge disk 
>> space?  Why would you need LVM, or to "splice in a new drive" on a
>> normal home system?
>>
> 
> Nothing really Dan. I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of an LVM 
> filesystem. Apparently Fedora thinks everyone should have one as it is 
> their default install method. I would much rather keep it simple like 
> before with an ext3 filesystem instead of this lvm stuff.
> 

You can, if you choose to setup the slices/partitions yourself instead of
using the default.

I believe that the LVM usage in RedHat has it's root in that there was some
users who got into trouble when their / got too small and got filled up to
fast, now they can take space from /home and move it to / without loosing date
(of course resize a file system can lead to data loss).

Myself I use normal file systems on most of my slices, while one storage
slices I use LVM, that way I can expand it when needed (adding a new hard
drive reduces the problem of moving all files) and on the VM's I have, thats
so I can make snapshots and backups and of course have a mirror of the system,
just in case.


-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/5/2010 3:33:33 PM
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:52:52 -0600, Ohmster wrote:

> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.01.05.14.01.19@moria.lan:
> 
>> What exactly is it that you do, that requires management of huge disk
>> space?  Why would you need LVM, or to "splice in a new drive" on a
>> normal home system?
>> 
>> 
> Nothing really Dan. I was trying to weigh the pros and cons of an LVM
> filesystem. Apparently Fedora thinks everyone should have one as it is
> their default install method. I would much rather keep it simple like
> before with an ext3 filesystem instead of this lvm stuff.

Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM.  Pay 
a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use 
LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM.  Don't use it.


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/6/2010 4:13:26 AM
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00
@moria.lan:

> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM.  Pay 
> a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use 
> LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM.  Don't use it.
> 

Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure of 
what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what to do 
and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstall 
with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an 
option but for sure now will be looking for it.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/6/2010 5:05:04 AM
On Jan 6, 12:05=A0am, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
> Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00
> @moria.lan:
>
> > Baloney. =A0I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM. =
=A0Pay
> > a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use
> > LVM, fer chrissakes. =A0Jesus. =A0You don't need friggin LVM. =A0Don't =
use it.
>
> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure o=
f
> what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what to =
do
> and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstall
> with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an
> option but for sure now will be looking for it.

What? No, wait. EXT3 is the *filesystem*. LVM is a way of creating
what look like *partitions* out of drives or other partitions, similar
to what RAID0 does but with more flexibility. You can use other
filesystems on LVM, and it simply does not care.

The awkward part is resizing and re-arranging components of LVM,
without causing trouble for the filesystem living on top of it.
0
Nico
1/6/2010 6:38:29 AM
On Wednesday 06 January 2010 06:05 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
as Ohmster wrote...

> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
> news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00 @moria.lan:
> 
>> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM. 
>> Pay a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose
>> to use LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM. 
>> Don't use it.
> 
> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100%
> sure of what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora
> knew what to do and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time
> I will reinstall with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did
> not know it was an option but for sure now will be looking for it.

LVM has nothing to do with ext3 or whatever other type of filesystem. 
LVM is a way of offering more flexibility in the choosing of a
partitioning layout by adding an additional layer on top of the
conventional partitioning, in which a partition can then contain
multiple "sub-partitions" - the logical volumes - which are more easily
resizable since one does not have to fiddle with partition tables.

Like conventional partitions, logical volumes need to be formatted with
a filesystem - this can be ext3, or it could be something else, like
XFS, JFS or reiserfs - before they can be used.  Logical volumes must
be part of a "volume group", but it is possible to use multiple volume
groups on a single hard disk, in which case it is best to assign each
volume group to a physical partition.

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
1/6/2010 7:55:01 AM
Ohmster wrote:
> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00
> @moria.lan:
> 
>> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM.  Pay 
>> a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use 
>> LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM.  Don't use it.
>>
> 
> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure of 
> what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what to do 
> and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstall 
> with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an 
> option but for sure now will be looking for it.
> 

IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.

-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/6/2010 8:30:03 AM
"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in news:7qj012Fqa7U1
@mid.individual.net:

> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
> 
> -- 
> 
>   //Aho

I thought that the journal addition was a good thing. What do you like Aho?

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/6/2010 3:08:16 PM
Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote in news:09ced5aa-d332-4211-9d2c-
fc76c9c7a6e3@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:

> What? No, wait. EXT3 is the *filesystem*. LVM is a way of creating
> what look like *partitions* out of drives or other partitions, similar
> to what RAID0 does but with more flexibility. You can use other
> filesystems on LVM, and it simply does not care.
> 
> The awkward part is resizing and re-arranging components of LVM,
> without causing trouble for the filesystem living on top of it.

My bad, I meant regular disk partitions instead of a movible LVM system. 
Thanks for the correction.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/6/2010 3:09:26 PM
Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in news:hi1fkl$1qm$1
@news.eternal-september.org:

> LVM has nothing to do with ext3 or whatever other type of filesystem. 
> LVM is a way of offering more flexibility in the choosing of a
> partitioning layout by adding an additional layer on top of the
> conventional partitioning, in which a partition can then contain
> multiple "sub-partitions" - the logical volumes - which are more easily
> resizable since one does not have to fiddle with partition tables.
> 
> Like conventional partitions, logical volumes need to be formatted with
> a filesystem - this can be ext3, or it could be something else, like
> XFS, JFS or reiserfs - before they can be used.  Logical volumes must
> be part of a "volume group", but it is possible to use multiple volume
> groups on a single hard disk, in which case it is best to assign each
> volume group to a physical partition.

Thanks for the excellent education Aragorn. I kind of got the two mixed up. 
I meant a regular partition disk instead of an LVM divided one. But this 
does explain a lot, thanks buddy.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/6/2010 3:10:55 PM
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:30:03 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:

> Ohmster wrote:
>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
>> news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00 @moria.lan:
>> 
>>> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM. 
>>> Pay a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to
>>> use LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM.  Don't
>>> use it.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure
>> of what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew
>> what to do and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I
>> will reinstall with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not
>> know it was an option but for sure now will be looking for it.
>> 
>> 
> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.

Exactly.  Which makes it safe and stable.  Good performance and 
stability.  What more would you want from your file system?

Please don't even mention the word "reiser"...


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/6/2010 3:35:24 PM
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:08:16 -0600, Ohmster wrote:

> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in news:7qj012Fqa7U1
> @mid.individual.net:
> 
>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
>> 
>> --
>> 
>>   //Aho
> 
> I thought that the journal addition was a good thing. What do you like
> Aho?

It is a good thing.  EXT3 is the right choice.


-- 
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he wiped the vomit from his chin.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
0
Dan
1/6/2010 3:35:43 PM
On 2010-01-06, Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 January 2010 06:05 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
> as Ohmster wrote...
>
>> Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in
>> news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00 @moria.lan:
>> 
>>> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM. 
>>> Pay a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose
>>> to use LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM. 
>>> Don't use it.
>> 
>> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100%
>> sure of what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora
>> knew what to do and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time
>> I will reinstall with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did
>> not know it was an option but for sure now will be looking for it.
>
> LVM has nothing to do with ext3 or whatever other type of filesystem. 
> LVM is a way of offering more flexibility in the choosing of a
> partitioning layout by adding an additional layer on top of the
> conventional partitioning, in which a partition can then contain
> multiple "sub-partitions" - the logical volumes - which are more easily
> resizable since one does not have to fiddle with partition tables.
>
> Like conventional partitions, logical volumes need to be formatted with
> a filesystem - this can be ext3, or it could be something else, like
> XFS, JFS or reiserfs - before they can be used.  Logical volumes must
> be part of a "volume group", but it is possible to use multiple volume
> groups on a single hard disk, in which case it is best to assign each
> volume group to a physical partition.

I'm glad somebody finally said this! I was about to do it myself :)

Personally, I think all the people complaining about LVM don't really
understand it. It is so much more flexible and extendable than standard
partitions. And the fact that you can resize online at any time as long as you
have free blocks is great!

Kevin
0
Kevin
1/6/2010 5:17:17 PM
On 2010-01-06, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 12:05�am, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
>> Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00
>> @moria.lan:
>>
>> > Baloney. �I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM. �Pay
>> > a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use
>> > LVM, fer chrissakes. �Jesus. �You don't need friggin LVM. �Don't use it.
>>
>> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure of
>> what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what to do
>> and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstall
>> with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an
>> option but for sure now will be looking for it.
>
> What? No, wait. EXT3 is the *filesystem*. LVM is a way of creating
> what look like *partitions* out of drives or other partitions, similar
> to what RAID0 does but with more flexibility. You can use other
> filesystems on LVM, and it simply does not care.
>
> The awkward part is resizing and re-arranging components of LVM,
> without causing trouble for the filesystem living on top of it.

Huh? What is awkward about it? Use "lvextend" followed by "resize2fs" and
you're done.

Please elaborate...

Kevin
0
Kevin
1/6/2010 5:19:20 PM
Aragorn wrote:
>
> LVM has nothing to do with ext3 or whatever other type of filesystem. 

Because LVM works at a different layer of the stack.  LVM is a layer
between the partition layer and the filesystem layer.

> LVM is a way of offering more flexibility in the choosing of a
> partitioning layout by adding an additional layer on top of the
> conventional partitioning, in which a partition can then contain
> multiple "sub-partitions" - the logical volumes - which are more easily
> resizable since one does not have to fiddle with partition tables.

Think of virtual memory - VM takes physical memory and divides it into
pages.  Then it builds a table of such pages and maps the memory space
of a process into that table.  The application typical is not aware that
there is a management layer between it and the physical memory.  Using
VM memory from multiple boards can be managed together whether that
happens naturally by the hardware or not.

Think of disk partitions - LVM manages them the way VM manages memory
banks.  Some LVMs even use "logical extents" and "physical extents" as
if they were pages.

There exist VM systems that manage variable sized memory segments and
there exist LVM systems (Veritas) that manage variable sized disk
segments but the principle of a management layer is the same.

> Like conventional partitions, logical volumes need to be formatted with
> a filesystem - this can be ext3, or it could be something else, like
> XFS, JFS or reiserfs - before they can be used.  Logical volumes must
> be part of a "volume group", but it is possible to use multiple volume
> groups on a single hard disk, in which case it is best to assign each
> volume group to a physical partition.

Like physical memory systems, virtual address spaces need to be
formatted by the image loader so a program can run.  The concept is the
same between memory and the process as between the disk partition and
the file system.

Folks who understand the concepts of how each layer works tend to be
able to handle their systems.  Folks who memorize the steps to do stuff
tend to get bogged down whenever a detail changes.  Data, information,
knowledge, wisdom.  Wisdom is power far more than data is power.
0
Doug
1/6/2010 5:54:40 PM
Ohmster wrote:
> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in news:7qj012Fqa7U1
> @mid.individual.net:
> 
>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
>>
> I thought that the journal addition was a good thing. What do you like Aho?


Depends on what I do with the machine, unstable or machines where I may need
to shrink the file system, reiserfs else jfs.


-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/6/2010 9:23:10 PM
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Jan 6, 12:05 am, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
>> Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14.00
>> @moria.lan:
>>
>>> Baloney.  I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM.  Pay
>>> a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to use
>>> LVM, fer chrissakes.  Jesus.  You don't need friggin LVM.  Don't use it.
>> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sure of
>> what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what to do
>> and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstall
>> with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an
>> option but for sure now will be looking for it.
> 
> What? No, wait. EXT3 is the *filesystem*. LVM is a way of creating
> what look like *partitions* out of drives or other partitions, similar
> to what RAID0 does but with more flexibility. You can use other
> filesystems on LVM, and it simply does not care.
> 
> The awkward part is resizing and re-arranging components of LVM,
> without causing trouble for the filesystem living on top of it.

If you think it is awkward resizing partitions on LVM, try doing it 
without LVM!

Growing LVM partitions and the file system on top of it is typically a 
simple procedure that can be done without even umouting the file system 
(at least with relatively modern kernels and ext3, ext4, xfs or 
reiserfs3 - and probably others).

Shrinking a file system is a bit harder, of course.
0
David
1/6/2010 9:29:40 PM
Dan C wrote:

[putolin]
>> 
>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
> 
> Exactly.  Which makes it safe and stable.  Good performance and
> stability.  What more would you want from your file system?
> 
> Please don't even mention the word "reiser"...
> 
> 

OK JFS

0
GangGreene
1/6/2010 9:34:13 PM
On Wednesday 06 January 2010 16:35 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
as Dan C wrote...

> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:30:03 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> 
>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
> 
> Exactly.  Which makes it safe and stable.  Good performance and
> stability.

Well, that's in the eye of the beholder, Dan. ;-)

> What more would you want from your file system?

More performance and reliability, perhaps? ;-)  Multiple B-plus trees,
for instance? ;-)

> Please don't even mention the word "reiser"...
 
/reiserfs/ (v3.6) is quite good and it's faster than /ext3/ but it lacks
a decent toolchain.  XFS on the other hand is just as reliable
as /ext2/ or /ext3/ - if not more reliable, given that it's been the
default filesystem in IRIX since 1996 - but is a B+ tree filesystem
with extremely high performance, a complete toolchain (unlike reiserfs)
and a rather secure filesystem too, since it zeroes out damaged blocks. 
It also allows for online snapshotting.  It's acknowledged as an
industry standard filesystem.

It's all a matter of taste, really, and of the intended purpose and
deployment of the machine.  /ext3/ is a decent filesystem for most
usages, but certainly not "the best" or "the best performing".  /ext4/
promises to be faster, but I'm not too familiar with all of its
properties yet.

Another interesting project, albeit not quite stable yet, is the new
Btrfs (pronounced as "butter filesystem"), which has been submitted to
the Linux kernel by Oracle.  It's still heavily in beta stage but it's
already included in the upstream sources from Linus & friends.  It more
or less offers all the goodies that Sun's ZFS offers, i.e. an
integrated filesystem _and_ logical volume manager.  It's an
interesting project, albeit not ready for prime time yet.

-- 
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
0
Aragorn
1/6/2010 11:27:40 PM
Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.15.36.16
@moria.lan:

> It is a good thing.  EXT3 is the right choice.

That is exactly what I believe.

-- 
~Ohmster | ohmster59 /a/t/ gmail dot com
Put "messageforohmster" in message body
(That is Message Body, not Subject!)
to pass my spam filter.
0
Ohmster
1/7/2010 5:43:13 AM
On 2010-01-06, Aragorn <aragorn@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

> /reiserfs/ (v3.6) is quite good and it's faster than /ext3/ but it lacks
> a decent toolchain.  XFS on the other hand is just as reliable
> as /ext2/ or /ext3/ - if not more reliable, given that it's been the
> default filesystem in IRIX since 1996 - but is a B+ tree filesystem
> with extremely high performance, a complete toolchain (unlike reiserfs)
> and a rather secure filesystem too, since it zeroes out damaged blocks. 
> It also allows for online snapshotting.  It's acknowledged as an
> industry standard filesystem.

XFS was the default filesystem on my SGI "Indy" even before 1996. It's 
probably the most mature journaled filesystem in ther *nix world.

-- 

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)
0
John
1/8/2010 12:29:16 AM
On Jan 6, 6:27=A0pm, Aragorn <arag...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 January 2010 16:35 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying
>
> as Dan C wrote...
> > On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:30:03 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
>
> >> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
>
> > Exactly. =A0Which makes it safe and stable. =A0Good performance and
> > stability.
>
> Well, that's in the eye of the beholder, Dan. ;-)
>
> > What more would you want from your file system?
>
> More performance and reliability, perhaps? ;-) =A0Multiple B-plus trees,
> for instance? ;-)
>
> > Please don't even mention the word "reiser"...
>
> /reiserfs/ (v3.6) is quite good and it's faster than /ext3/ but it lacks
> a decent toolchain. =A0XFS on the other hand is just as reliable
> as /ext2/ or /ext3/ - if not more reliable, given that it's been the
> default filesystem in IRIX since 1996 - but is a B+ tree filesystem
> with extremely high performance, a complete toolchain (unlike reiserfs)
> and a rather secure filesystem too, since it zeroes out damaged blocks.
> It also allows for online snapshotting. =A0It's acknowledged as an
> industry standard filesystem.

The following description is amazingly rude and insensitive, but
heartfelt.

Reiserfs treats your files like Hans Reiser treated his ex-wife. When
something goes really wrong (such as divorce or a failing hard drive
in a RAID set), it deletes them, pretends complete innocence, tries to
hide the evidence, and wastes your time proving its guilt when we all
know who did it. Like its author, it is technically brilliant but
dangerously unstable. Unless your data actively enjoys S&M like Han's
ex-wife did, and you would care to have your files risk the same fate,
I can't recommend it.

I had this sort of thing happen *every single time* I tried ReiserFS,
with five different machines, two different operating systems (RHEL
and SuSE). Since ext3 came out and addressed the "thousands of files
in one directory" issue, there's simply no reason to use ReiserFS
except possibly for high-volume NNTP or proxy servers where high
performance matters and flesystem integrity is not so critical.

> Another interesting project, albeit not quite stable yet, is the new
> Btrfs (pronounced as "butter filesystem"), which has been submitted to
> the Linux kernel by Oracle. =A0It's still heavily in beta stage but it's
> already included in the upstream sources from Linus & friends. =A0It more
> or less offers all the goodies that Sun's ZFS offers, i.e. an
> integrated filesystem _and_ logical volume manager. =A0It's an
> interesting project, albeit not ready for prime time yet.

I've been hearing good things: it seems to the equivalent of
PostgreSQL versus MySQL: different details and different licensing,
but a lot of the same overall functionality.
0
Nico
1/8/2010 5:13:42 AM
On Jan 6, 4:29=A0pm, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 12:05 am, Ohmster <r...@dev.nul.invalid> wrote:
> >> Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote in news:pan.2010.01.06.04.14=
..00
> >> @moria.lan:
>
> >>> Baloney. =A0I've installed Fedora many times and have NEVER used LVM.=
 =A0Pay
> >>> a little attention during the install, and don't fucking choose to us=
e
> >>> LVM, fer chrissakes. =A0Jesus. =A0You don't need friggin LVM. =A0Don'=
t use it.
> >> Agreed. I have followed the default install because I was not 100% sur=
e of
> >> what I was doing during the install and figured that Fedora knew what =
to do
> >> and that is how I got stuck with LVM drives. This time I will reinstal=
l
> >> with an EXT3 filesystem and no more LVM. I just did not know it was an
> >> option but for sure now will be looking for it.
>
> > What? No, wait. EXT3 is the *filesystem*. LVM is a way of creating
> > what look like *partitions* out of drives or other partitions, similar
> > to what RAID0 does but with more flexibility. You can use other
> > filesystems on LVM, and it simply does not care.
>
> > The awkward part is resizing and re-arranging components of LVM,
> > without causing trouble for the filesystem living on top of it.
>
> If you think it is awkward resizing partitions on LVM, try doing it
> without LVM!
>
> Growing LVM partitions and the file system on top of it is typically a
> simple procedure that can be done without even umouting the file system
> (at least with relatively modern kernels and ext3, ext4, xfs or
> reiserfs3 - and probably others).
>
> Shrinking a file system is a bit harder, of course.

Well, yes. It's why I dislike over-partitioning filesystems, and
prefer to keep a few largish partitions.
0
Nico
1/8/2010 5:15:36 AM
On 2010-01-06, Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:08:16 -0600, Ohmster wrote:
>
>> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in news:7qj012Fqa7U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>> 
>>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>>   //Aho
>> 
>> I thought that the journal addition was a good thing. What do you like
>> Aho?
>
> It is a good thing.  EXT3 is the right choice.

When I upgraded my hard drive I went with ext4 as I couldn't see any
downsides, but I don't see any installers that offer it.

anyone know why?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
0
Jasen
1/8/2010 9:18:59 AM
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Jan 6, 6:27 pm, Aragorn <arag...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:

>>> Please don't even mention the word "reiser"...
>> /reiserfs/ (v3.6) is quite good and it's faster than /ext3/ but it lacks
>> a decent toolchain.  XFS on the other hand is just as reliable
>> as /ext2/ or /ext3/ - if not more reliable, given that it's been the
>> default filesystem in IRIX since 1996 - but is a B+ tree filesystem
>> with extremely high performance, a complete toolchain (unlike reiserfs)
>> and a rather secure filesystem too, since it zeroes out damaged blocks.
>> It also allows for online snapshotting.  It's acknowledged as an
>> industry standard filesystem.
> 
> The following description is amazingly rude and insensitive, but
> heartfelt.
> 
> Reiserfs treats your files like Hans Reiser treated his ex-wife. When
> something goes really wrong (such as divorce or a failing hard drive
> in a RAID set), it deletes them, pretends complete innocence, tries to
> hide the evidence, and wastes your time proving its guilt when we all
> know who did it. Like its author, it is technically brilliant but
> dangerously unstable. Unless your data actively enjoys S&M like Han's
> ex-wife did, and you would care to have your files risk the same fate,
> I can't recommend it.
> 
> I had this sort of thing happen *every single time* I tried ReiserFS,
> with five different machines, two different operating systems (RHEL
> and SuSE). Since ext3 came out and addressed the "thousands of files
> in one directory" issue, there's simply no reason to use ReiserFS
> except possibly for high-volume NNTP or proxy servers where high
> performance matters and flesystem integrity is not so critical.

I can say I never had any problems with reiserfs 3.6 (had a quite many bug
fixes compared with earlier versions, which may be those you tried). On the
other hand I have had bad file system problems with ext3, which wasn't
repairable and lead to reinstalls of systems.

Early Xfs for Linux I had quite many file losses, as much of the stuff was in
ram and never pushed out to the hard drive when machine crashed.

Jfs is my favorite, fast and by default goes to write only mode when something
goes badly wrong, but needs more hand on after a system crash than resierfs
(which I use it on unstable systems) and with both I get rid of the inode
problem that you seem to have with ext2/3 with loads of small files and of
course the laginesh of ext2/3 ain't there.

-- 

  //Aho
0
J
1/8/2010 10:58:37 AM
John Thompson wrote:
>
> XFS was the default filesystem on my SGI "Indy" even before 1996. It's 
> probably the most mature journaled filesystem in ther *nix world.

I think I was using JFS2 on AIX systems at least 3 years before that. 
AIX has lead the way on an assortment of technologies that are now
standard and the journalling file system is not the only such item.  I
just wish AIX were more like real UNIX ...

But on any system X I want to go with widget Y that has a large market
share and a long history.  In this case X is Linux and Y is ext2/3.  On
my home experimental system doing all sorts of fun experimental stuff is
the norm, but I make my living maintaining large data centers with
production systems and for them I want to shot for the center of the
target.  Once the decision to use Linux has been made the center is
either Red Hat or Unbreakable depending on context and the filesystem at
the center is ext3.

How SGI and IRIX.  I loved those hosts back when I worked in the
aerospace industry.  Really good hardware and software and then one day
there was a corporate announcement that pissed off every one of their
customers and their market share started to fall precipitously.  I
haven't seen an SGI since 1998.
0
Doug
1/8/2010 4:53:37 PM
I demand that Nico Kadel-Garcia may or may not have written...

[snip]
> And by the way, many older man pages look *AWFUL* with the default
> "LANG=en_US.UTF-8" settings. I often find it handy to reset my LANG with
> "export LANG=C" to fix manpage output. This also fixes the case
> insensitivity problem of the "sort" command. As a hint, I *HATE* that
> en_US.UTF-8 is case insensitive. Hate, hate, hate, hate.

export LC_COLLATE=C

[snip]
-- 
| Darren Salt            | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds    ,demon,co,uk    | Northumberland | Army
| + Vermin Media. It's not "nothing to hide" but "you're invading my
privacy".

fanatic: n. One enthusiastic about something about which you don't care.
0
Darren
1/8/2010 11:28:40 PM
I demand that Jasen Betts may or may not have written...

[snip]
> When I upgraded my hard drive I went with ext4 as I couldn't see any
> downsides, but I don't see any installers that offer it.

> anyone know why?

Too new (at feature-freeze time) seems likely. I recently saw something about
ext4 support being added to debian-installer, though...

-- 
| Darren Salt            | linux at youmustbejoking | nr. Ashington, | Doon
| using Debian GNU/Linux | or ds    ,demon,co,uk    | Northumberland | Army
| + http://www.youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk/ & http://tlasd.wordpress.com/

Microsoft. Where Are You Going To Be Forced To Go Today?
0
Darren
1/8/2010 11:32:19 PM
On 2010-01-08, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 2010-01-06, Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:08:16 -0600, Ohmster wrote:
>>
>>> "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote in news:7qj012Fqa7U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>> 
>>>> IMHO ext3 suxx, just ext2 with journal added.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>>   //Aho
>>> 
>>> I thought that the journal addition was a good thing. What do you like
>>> Aho?
>>
>> It is a good thing.  EXT3 is the right choice.
>
> When I upgraded my hard drive I went with ext4 as I couldn't see any
> downsides, but I don't see any installers that offer it.
>
> anyone know why?

When I installed xubuntu-9.10 on my netbook a couple weeks ago, ext4 was 
the default filesystem offered.

-- 

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)
0
John
1/9/2010 3:53:34 AM
Reply: