Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Trond Hagen]

Hi !

I'm have problems with creating files bigger than 2GB on a 3.6 reiserfs.

Why ?

Spec:
2.4.9-e.24enterprise
ReiserFS version 3.6.25 [as module]



Trond Hagen
trond@vinterbro.com

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Jure Pecar]

On 26 Jun 2003 15:53:35 +0200
Trond Hagen <trond@vinterbro.com> wrote:

> Hi !
> 
> I'm have problems with creating files bigger than 2GB on a 3.6 reiserfs.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Spec:
> 2.4.9-e.24enterprise
> ReiserFS version 3.6.25 [as module]

Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.

There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 

--

Jure Pecar

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:53:35PM +0200, Trond Hagen wrote:

> I'm have problems with creating files bigger than 2GB on a 3.6 reiserfs.
> Why ?
> Spec:
> 2.4.9-e.24enterprise
> ReiserFS version 3.6.25 [as module]

You need to make sure that your filesystem is of 3.6 format (if it is not,
a warning is printed that 3.5.x format is used).

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Hans Reiser]

Jure Pecar wrote:

>On 26 Jun 2003 15:53:35 +0200
>Trond Hagen <trond@vinterbro.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi !
>>
>>I'm have problems with creating files bigger than 2GB on a 3.6 reiserfs.
>>
>>Why ?
>>
>>Spec:
>>2.4.9-e.24enterprise
>>ReiserFS version 3.6.25 [as module]
>>    
>>
>
>Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
>Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
>afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.
>
>There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 
>
>--
>
>Jure Pecar
>
>
>  
>
You mean RedHat is STILL shipping 2.4.9 based kernels?  Oh no wonder 
there are people with stability problems.....

-- 
Hans

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:30:15PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:

> >Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
> >Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
> >afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.
> >There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 
> You mean RedHat is STILL shipping 2.4.9 based kernels?  Oh no wonder 
> there are people with stability problems.....

No, I believe there was kernel update last month that upgraded RHAS kernel up to
2.4.18.
Anyway RHAS 2.4.9 kernel does not have that much in common with vanilla 2.4.9.

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Alexander Lyamin]

Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:59:18AM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:30:15PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> > >Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
> > >Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
> > >afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.
> > >There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 
> > You mean RedHat is STILL shipping 2.4.9 based kernels?  Oh no wonder 
> > there are people with stability problems.....
> 
> No, I believe there was kernel update last month that upgraded RHAS kernel up to
> 2.4.18.
> Anyway RHAS 2.4.9 kernel does not have that much in common with vanilla 2.4.9.

If there's nothing much in common with vanilla linux, then they should not 
mislead their customers with "linux" label on it, but should fork and do 
something like Reddix or Hattix 2.4.9 .

Sometimes I really getting lost in marketting tricks of thouse guys.

> Bye,
>     Oleg

-- 
everything zen
lex lyamin

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Nikita Danilov]

Alexander Lyamin writes:
 > Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:59:18AM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
 > > Hello!
 > > 
 > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:30:15PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
 > > 
 > > > >Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
 > > > >Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
 > > > >afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.
 > > > >There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 
 > > > You mean RedHat is STILL shipping 2.4.9 based kernels?  Oh no wonder 
 > > > there are people with stability problems.....
 > > 
 > > No, I believe there was kernel update last month that upgraded RHAS kernel up to
 > > 2.4.18.
 > > Anyway RHAS 2.4.9 kernel does not have that much in common with vanilla 2.4.9.

Really? It is easy to calculate a number of lines of the code that are
different in Red Top Hat kernels, and it is highly doubtful, that more
than half are changed (least which would qualify as "does not have that
much in common").

 > 
 > If there's nothing much in common with vanilla linux, then they should not 
 > mislead their customers with "linux" label on it, but should fork and do 
 > something like Reddix or Hattix 2.4.9 .

Reiserfs was to much extent -only- successful because SuSE generously
shipped, and supported it long before it was included into vanilla
kernel. Face it.

 > 
 > Sometimes I really getting lost in marketting tricks of thouse guys.
 > 
 > > Bye,
 > >     Oleg
 > 
 > -- 
 > everything zen
 > lex lyamin

Nikita.

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Chris Mason]

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 04:50, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 10:59:18AM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 08:30:15PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > 
> > > >Because RedHat never bothered to update reiserfs code in their e kernels.
> > > >Your best bet is to get a newer kernel, perhaps 2.4.21, and if you cannot
> > > >afford that, trim your app to not create files that big.
> > > >There are rumors that 2.4.18 based e kernel is in the testing ... 
> > > You mean RedHat is STILL shipping 2.4.9 based kernels?  Oh no wonder 
> > > there are people with stability problems.....
> > 
> > No, I believe there was kernel update last month that upgraded RHAS kernel up to
> > 2.4.18.
> > Anyway RHAS 2.4.9 kernel does not have that much in common with vanilla 2.4.9.
> 
> If there's nothing much in common with vanilla linux, then they should not 
> mislead their customers with "linux" label on it, but should fork and do 
> something like Reddix or Hattix 2.4.9 .
> 
> Sometimes I really getting lost in marketting tricks of thouse guys.

Most of the differences are backports of features in other linux
kernels.  When you commit to maintaining a kernel for a long period of
time, you've got two choices about how to deal with critical updates. 
You can back port them from future kernels or you can offer an upgrade
path to new kernels.

Both have their own advantages.

-chris

Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files

[Russell Coker]

On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 18:50, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> > No, I believe there was kernel update last month that upgraded RHAS
> > kernel up to 2.4.18.
> > Anyway RHAS 2.4.9 kernel does not have that much in common with vanilla
> > 2.4.9.
>
> If there's nothing much in common with vanilla linux, then they should not
> mislead their customers with "linux" label on it, but should fork and do
> something like Reddix or Hattix 2.4.9 .

In that case we will have Susix, Red Hattix, Debianix, etc and no-one will be 
using "Linux".  Then we will all get sued by the idiots who own the copyright 
to some second-rate French comics and then be forced to call it Linux again.  
:-#

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/    Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

[OT] Distro names ending with 'ix' and Linux forks Was [Re: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (v. 2.1) and > 2 GB files]

[Philippe Gramoullé]

Hello Russel,

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 02:10:46 +1000
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:

  | > If there's nothing much in common with vanilla linux, then they should not
  | > mislead their customers with "linux" label on it, but should fork and do
  | > something like Reddix or Hattix 2.4.9 .
  | 
  | In that case we will have Susix, Red Hattix, Debianix, etc and no-one will be 
  | using "Linux".  Then we will all get sued by the idiots who own the copyright 
  | to some second-rate French comics and then be forced to call it Linux again.  
  | :-#

Well, for those who may not know, Russel refers to a dispute between ex Mobilix.org
wet site and French comics "Asterix and Obelix" as its publisher sued the above mentionned website
for the reason that mobilix.org was too close of the comics name :-( ( changed to tuxmobil.org BTW)

Two remarks there : 

- Asterix and Obelix is a first class comics _but_ their publisher is sure missing
some basic and easy to understand facts.

- Russel, you may know, if you've read the comics, that "Asterix and Obelix" live in a small
french village in Brittany (where i live :) , the only one to resist to Julius Caesarius
soldiers.

The analogy is obvious. Linux can be seen as the village who resists to invaders and Redmond
soldiers. Still, i hope ( and really thinks) Linux will not fall where UNIX has as long as
plenty of users benefit from vanilla/-aa/ac/-mm/-mjb/-wli/-etc.. Linuxes and manage to give back
to the community what they can.

Redhat didn't always play nicely with Reiserfs but no matter what , i think they brought a whole lot
to Linux in general.

Thanks,

Philippe

--

Philippe Gramoullé
philippe.gramoulle@mmania.com
System & Network Engineer
NOC France - Lycos Europe
100% Debian/ReiserFS Datacenter :)