Re: Reiserfs versions

[kenny gorman <kgorman@panix.com>]

I poked around suse's site, and found the 'certified kernel' with:

2.4.16-64gb smp
reiserfs-3.x.0k_pre10-8

See any reason why this combination is not a good idea?

How do the version numbers work? I am confused about the 3.x notation 
and the 3.6 notation you used below...I upgraded my reiserfsprogs to 
3.6.4 just in case, but the filesystem rpm is still 3.x.0k_pre10-8 right?

Thanks!!!

-kg


Oleg Drokin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:30:57PM -0800, kenny gorman wrote:
> 
> 
>>I guess I want to get what would be considered the most stable 
>>combination of code vs. something bleeding edge, but also not old like 
>>what I have now (and thus prone to bugs...).  I really like reiserfs, 
>>but I have heard of (and experienced it now) about corruption problems.
>>Currently, I am running (no laughing..):
>>Suse 2.4.7-64GB-SMP
> 
> 
> Upgrade this to vanilla 2.4.19 or if you prefer SuSE stuff - to
> SuSE's errata 2.4.16 kernel.
> Actually you might try more recent 2.4.20-pre (or rc) stuff if you want, too
> if you do not feel it is too bleeding edge for you.
> 
> 
>>lvm-0.9.1_beta7-10
> 
> 
> Do not know about that.
> 
> 
>>reiserfs-3.x.0j-17
> 
> 
> This should be upgraded to latest reiserfsprogs which is 3.6.4.
> 3.x.0j is way too unstable.
> 
> Bye,
>     Oleg
> 
> .
>