From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kenny gorman Subject: Re: Reiserfs versions Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 23:46:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3DD9EC4B.70907@panix.com> References: <3DD97831.4030607@panix.com> <20021119093526.A32026@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Oleg Drokin Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.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 > > . >