2 Terabyte install

2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 963 bytes --]

What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems 
with the following combinations?  My googling has produced inconsistent 
answers.

    { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }

We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a scsi 
controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We have 8 
x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.

Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5, 
reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd find 
out what the bounds were for sure.

Thanks,

Cliff

--

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the 
addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone 
the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, 
please advise the sender and delete the message.  Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1284 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Vladimir Saveliev]

Hello

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems
> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
> inconsistent answers.
>         { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }

http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs

> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
> 
> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
> find out what the bounds were for sure.
> 

I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.

> Thanks,
> 
> Cliff
> 
> --
> 
> This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the 
> addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone 
> the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, 
> please advise the sender and delete the message.  Thank you.

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Hans Reiser]

Vladimir Saveliev wrote:

>Hello
>
>On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
>  
>
>>What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems
>>with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
>>inconsistent answers.
>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
>>    
>>
>
>http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
>
>  
>
>>We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
>>scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
>>have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
>>
>>Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
>>reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
>>find out what the bounds were for sure.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
>linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
>
>  
>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Cliff
>>
>>--
>>
>>This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the 
>>addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone 
>>the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, 
>>please advise the sender and delete the message.  Thank you.
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>
Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 limits.  
Vitaly, please assist.

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the right 
things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know should have 
the answers.

So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but that 
fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, but the 
system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but my guessis 
either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.

Hans Reiser wrote:

> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
>
>> Hello
>>
>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems
>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
>>> inconsistent answers.
>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
>>>   
>>
>>
>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
>>
>>  
>>
>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
>>>
>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Cliff
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive 
>>> for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the 
>>> message or any information contained in the message. If you have 
>>> received the message in error, please advise the sender and delete 
>>> the message.  Thank you.
>>>   
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 
> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Lamont R. Peterson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 10:48, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
> minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the right 
> things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know should have 
> the answers.

I know how you feel.  You are not alone in this :-).

> So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but that 
> fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, but the 
> system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but my guessis 
> either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.

I have found sfdisk to be less than useful, most of the time.  Though I
have not tried it with a 2TB device before, I was not surprised by this,
at all.
[SNIP]
-- 
Lamont R. Peterson <lamont@gurulabs.com>
Senior Instructor
Guru Labs, L.C. http://www.GuruLabs.com/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Lamont R. Peterson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1284 bytes --]

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 16:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems
> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
> inconsistent answers.
>         { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.

Under the 2.4 kernels, the VFS limits a single device to 2TB; I think
the exact value, IIRC, is (2^41)-1 bytes.  For the 2.6 kernel, I have
read that this was raised to approximately 16TB, though I have not taken
the time yet to verify this in the source.

> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
> find out what the bounds were for sure.

OK, the kernel should not be limiting it (unless there is something
stupid in the 3ware driver).  I think Vitally would the one to answer
whether reiserfs3 could be limiting it. Is mkreiserfs thinking that the
VFS will stop it at 2TB, perhaps?
-- 
Lamont R. Peterson <lamont@gurulabs.com>
Senior Instructor
Guru Labs, L.C. http://www.GuruLabs.com/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Hans Reiser]

Clifford Beshers wrote:

> Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
> minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the right 
> things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know should 
> have the answers.
>
> So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but that 
> fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, but the 
> system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but my guessis 
> either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.

If you want us to research the problem source for you further, let us 
know.  Be  suspicious of the device driver....

>
> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>> What are the current size limitations for disks/partitions/filesystems
>>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
>>>> inconsistent answers.
>>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
>>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
>>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
>>>>
>>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
>>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
>>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
>>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Cliff
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
>>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive 
>>>> for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the 
>>>> message or any information contained in the message. If you have 
>>>> received the message in error, please advise the sender and delete 
>>>> the message.  Thank you.
>>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 
>> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.
>
>
>
>
>

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Vladimir Karavelov]

Hi to everybody there,
If you are using 75xx or 85xx series controller there is a 2TB limitation
per RAId volume. Are you shure that you are using newes 3ware 9500S series
controller?

rgds
Vladimir

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Reiser" <reiser@namesys.com>
To: "Clifford Beshers" <clifford.beshers@lindows.com>
Cc: "Vladimir Saveliev" <vs@namesys.com>; "Reiserfs mail-list"
<Reiserfs-List@namesys.com>; "Vitaly Fertman" <vitaly@namesys.com>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: 2 Terabyte install


> Clifford Beshers wrote:
>
> > Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three
> > minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the right
> > things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know should
> > have the answers.
> >
> > So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but that
> > fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, but the
> > system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but my guessis
> > either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.
>
> If you want us to research the problem source for you further, let us
> know.  Be  suspicious of the device driver....
>
> >
> > Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> >> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> What are the current size limitations for
disks/partitions/filesystems
> >>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
> >>>> inconsistent answers.
> >>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
> >>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
> >>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
> >>>>
> >>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
> >>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
> >>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
> >>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Cliff
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and
> >>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive
> >>>> for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the
> >>>> message or any information contained in the message. If you have
> >>>> received the message in error, please advise the sender and delete
> >>>> the message.  Thank you.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3
> >> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3261 bytes --]

Thanks for the help everyone.  In the end, it turned out that sfdisk is 
indeed the culprit.  We created a 2.1T partition with fdisk, then asked 
sfdisk for the size and it said: -92,xxx,xxx.  Unfortunately, this means 
we have to either fix it or find an alternate solution to creating 
partitions.  If the word ``parted'' is on the tip of your tongue  I'll 
bet you haven't actually used the thing...

There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.

While I'm here, I have some other questions:

    * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition?  It
      seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
      different for Reiser4?
    * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
      partition without mounting it?

Cliff

Hans Reiser wrote:

> Clifford Beshers wrote:
>
>> Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
>> minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the right 
>> things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know should 
>> have the answers.
>>
>> So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but that 
>> fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, but the 
>> system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but my 
>> guessis either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.
>
>
> If you want us to research the problem source for you further, let us 
> know.  Be  suspicious of the device driver....
>
>>
>> Hans Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> What are the current size limitations for 
>>>>> disks/partitions/filesystems
>>>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
>>>>> inconsistent answers.
>>>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
>>>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide drives).  We
>>>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
>>>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
>>>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
>>>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>>
>>>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
>>>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive 
>>>>> for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone 
>>>>> the message or any information contained in the message. If you 
>>>>> have received the message in error, please advise the sender and 
>>>>> delete the message.  Thank you.
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>
>>> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 
>>> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4542 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Andreas Dilger]

On May 11, 2004  19:51 -0700, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> Thanks for the help everyone.  In the end, it turned out that sfdisk is 
> indeed the culprit.  We created a 2.1T partition with fdisk, then asked 
> sfdisk for the size and it said: -92,xxx,xxx.  Unfortunately, this means 
> we have to either fix it or find an alternate solution to creating 
> partitions.  If the word ``parted'' is on the tip of your tongue  I'll 
> bet you haven't actually used the thing...
> 
> There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
> is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.
> 
> While I'm here, I have some other questions:
> 
>    * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition?  It
>      seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
>      different for Reiser4?

AFAIK, reiserfs will do the initial zeroing of the journal and filesystem
bitmaps at the first mount time instead of at mkreiserfs time.  I don't
know why it was done that way.

>    * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
>      partition without mounting it?

Lots of them.  "file -s /dev/foo" or if you have a newer e2fsprogs (1.33
and newer I think) you can use "blkid [dev ...]" to tell you a bunch of
things about each device (LABEL, UUID, TYPE).

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Vladimir Saveliev]

Hello

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 07:41, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On May 11, 2004  19:51 -0700, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> > Thanks for the help everyone.  In the end, it turned out that sfdisk is 
> > indeed the culprit.  We created a 2.1T partition with fdisk, then asked 
> > sfdisk for the size and it said: -92,xxx,xxx.  Unfortunately, this means 
> > we have to either fix it or find an alternate solution to creating 
> > partitions.  If the word ``parted'' is on the tip of your tongue  I'll 
> > bet you haven't actually used the thing...
> > 
> > There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
> > is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.
> > 
> > While I'm here, I have some other questions:
> > 
> >    * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition?  It
> >      seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
> >      different for Reiser4?
> 
> AFAIK, reiserfs will do the initial zeroing of the journal and filesystem
> bitmaps at the first mount time instead of at mkreiserfs time.  I don't
> know why it was done that way.

Hmm, I do not think that you are right. I guess reiserfs mount time is
proportional to a partition size because reiserfs reads all bitmap
blocks on mount. So does reiser4.

> 
> >    * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
> >      partition without mounting it?
> 
> Lots of them.  "file -s /dev/foo" or if you have a newer e2fsprogs (1.33
> and newer I think) you can use "blkid [dev ...]" to tell you a bunch of
> things about each device (LABEL, UUID, TYPE).
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
> http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
> 
> 

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Philippe Gramoullé]

Hello,

You can use gpart [1], which Namesys has a patch [2] for, on their web site, to
support reiserfs. I tried it and it works just as expected.

Thanks,

Philippe

[1] http://www.stud.uni-hannover.de/user/76201/gpart/
[2] ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/misc-patches/gpart-0.1h-reiserfs-3.6.patch.gz

On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:41:50 -0600
Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com> wrote:

  | >    * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
  | >      partition without mounting it?
  | 
  | Lots of them.  "file -s /dev/foo" or if you have a newer e2fsprogs (1.33
  | and newer I think) you can use "blkid [dev ...]" to tell you a bunch of
  | things about each device (LABEL, UUID, TYPE).
  | 
  | Cheers, Andreas

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Hans Reiser]

Clifford Beshers wrote:

> Thanks for the help everyone.  In the end, it turned out that sfdisk 
> is indeed the culprit.  We created a 2.1T partition with fdisk, then 
> asked sfdisk for the size and it said: -92,xxx,xxx.  Unfortunately, 
> this means we have to either fix it or find an alternate solution to 
> creating partitions.

We can probably fix it for you if you like....

>   If the word ``parted'' is on the tip of your tongue  I'll bet you 
> haven't actually used the thing...
>
> There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
> is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.
>
> While I'm here, I have some other questions:
>
>     * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition? 
>       It seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
>       different for Reiser4?
>     * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
>       partition without mounting it?
>
is the time a problem in practice, or just a curiousity point?

> Cliff
>
> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Clifford Beshers wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
>>> minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the 
>>> right things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know 
>>> should have the answers.
>>>
>>> So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but 
>>> that fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, 
>>> but the system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but 
>>> my guessis either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.
>>
>>
>> If you want us to research the problem source for you further, let us 
>> know.  Be  suspicious of the device driver....
>>
>>>
>>> Hans Reiser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are the current size limitations for 
>>>>>> disks/partitions/filesystems
>>>>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
>>>>>> inconsistent answers.
>>>>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
>>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
>>>>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide 
>>>>>> drives).  We
>>>>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
>>>>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
>>>>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
>>>>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
>>>>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to 
>>>>>> receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to 
>>>>>> anyone the message or any information contained in the message. 
>>>>>> If you have received the message in error, please advise the 
>>>>>> sender and delete the message.  Thank you.
>>>>>>   
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 
>>>> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Mike Benoit]

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 09:59, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
> > is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.
> >
> > While I'm here, I have some other questions:
> >
> >     * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition? 
> >       It seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
> >       different for Reiser4?
> >     * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
> >       partition without mounting it?
> >
> is the time a problem in practice, or just a curiousity point?

Hans,

	The last place I worked had a 2.5TB RAID array that had 10's of
millions of files on it, basically a perfect fit for ReiserFS. However
they rejected it simply because of the mount times. It was a slower
machine (mainly used for dumb storage, however uptime was critical) but
the mount times were just crazy, I don't have hard numbers, but if I
recall correctly I was told around 5-10 minutes. 

Basically it made it so just kernel upgrades due to newly found exploits
in a single year had the potential to breach the SLA's we had with
customers, simply due to ReiserFS mount times. :(

Obviously RAID arrays are getting larger and larger these days, uptime
is critical, and reboots are a part of life when it comes to security
and being on the internet. If ReiserFS V4's mount time is proportional
to the size of the partition, I can see that being a huge concern for a
lot of people. Especially people in large data centers where SLA's are
signed with every customer, and minutes of downtime could mean writing
cheques to customers. 

It would be a shame to see a masterpiece like ReiserFS V4 be rejected in
large storage situations due to something as trivial as mount times. Is
there anything that can be done to speed up mount times on ReiserFS's V3
or V4?

Thanks.

> 
> > Cliff
> >
> > Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> >> Clifford Beshers wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks Hans, but no need.  I found the page in the FAQ about three 
> >>> minutes after I posted.  I get so used to google finding me the 
> >>> right things, I occasionally forget to just go to the place I know 
> >>> should have the answers.
> >>>
> >>> So far, I know that sfdisk choked on creating the partition, but 
> >>> that fdisk succeeded.  After that the install proceeded normally, 
> >>> but the system didn't reboot.  I have to go get details on why, but 
> >>> my guessis either lilo or a missing module in the initrd.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you want us to research the problem source for you further, let us 
> >> know.  Be  suspicious of the device driver....
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hans Reiser wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Vladimir Saveliev wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 02:58, Clifford Beshers wrote:
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What are the current size limitations for 
> >>>>>> disks/partitions/filesystems
> >>>>>> with the following combinations?  My googling has produced
> >>>>>> inconsistent answers.
> >>>>>>        { linux 2.4.24, linux 2.6.5 } X { reiserfs3, reiser4 }
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://namesys.com/faq.html#reiserfsspecs
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> We have a new machine with a 3-ware 8 port controller (looks like a
> >>>>>> scsi controller to the system, but actually drives 8 ide 
> >>>>>> drives).  We
> >>>>>> have 8 x 300GB drives attached for a total > 2TB.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Our IT guy has been unable to install Linspire on it (linux 2.6.5,
> >>>>>> reiserfs3).  I'm about to go look in more detail, but I thought I'd
> >>>>>> find out what the bounds were for sure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I assume mkreiserfs was not the reason why you guys failed to install
> >>>>> linux on your hardware. It works for > 2tb devices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cliff
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This message contains information which may be confidential and 
> >>>>>> privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to 
> >>>>>> receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to 
> >>>>>> anyone the message or any information contained in the message. 
> >>>>>> If you have received the message in error, please advise the 
> >>>>>> sender and delete the message.  Thank you.
> >>>>>>   
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please provide exact answer to this question about what are V3 
> >>>> limits.  Vitaly, please assist.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

Hans Reiser wrote:

> Clifford Beshers wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the help everyone.  In the end, it turned out that sfdisk 
>> is indeed the culprit.  We created a 2.1T partition with fdisk, then 
>> asked sfdisk for the size and it said: -92,xxx,xxx.  Unfortunately, 
>> this means we have to either fix it or find an alternate solution to 
>> creating partitions.
>
>
> We can probably fix it for you if you like....

I'm going to try the alternatives first and at the same time email the 
author and the Debian maintainer of sfdisk and ask them what's up.

>
>> While I'm here, I have some other questions:
>>
>>     * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition? 
>>       It seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
>>       different for Reiser4?
>>
> is the time a problem in practice, or just a curiousity point?


Our customers have complained about our boot times, so we've been 
tracking things down and fixing them.  We were doing two passes of 
mounting everything, one pass to figure out what was there, another to 
let the traditional 'mountall' init script do its work.  We were 
assuming that the mount times were constant and small.  But as the disks 
are getting bigger, the second mount is noticeable, so we're fixing 
that.  The first mount is definitely noticeable on the 2T machine, but 
we figure if we do our jobs right, people should rarely be rebooting anyway.

Cliff

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Chris Mason]

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 14:24, Mike Benoit wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 09:59, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > > There were a few bugs of ours that acted as red herrings, but Linspire 
> > > is now up and running on this system with ReiserFS 3 and kernel 2.6.5.
> > >
> > > While I'm here, I have some other questions:
> > >
> > >     * What is the time complexity of mounting a ReiserFS partition? 
> > >       It seems to be proportional to the size of the partition?  Is it
> > >       different for Reiser4?
> > >     * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
> > >       partition without mounting it?
> > >
> > is the time a problem in practice, or just a curiousity point?
> 
> Hans,
> 
> 	The last place I worked had a 2.5TB RAID array that had 10's of
> millions of files on it, basically a perfect fit for ReiserFS. However
> they rejected it simply because of the mount times. It was a slower
> machine (mainly used for dumb storage, however uptime was critical) but
> the mount times were just crazy, I don't have hard numbers, but if I
> recall correctly I was told around 5-10 minutes. 
> 
Hans' guys made mount times better in v3 by reading the bitmaps in big
chunks.  I suspect you were using a kernel from before that fix.

-chris

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1222 bytes --]


Andreas Dilger wrote:

>>   * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
>>     partition without mounting it?
>>    
>>
>
>Lots of them.  "file -s /dev/foo" or if you have a newer e2fsprogs (1.33
>and newer I think) you can use "blkid [dev ...]" to tell you a bunch of
>things about each device (LABEL, UUID, TYPE).
>
>
>  
>
Very interesting.  Unfotunately, my results don't match yours.

First, I had tried 'file' and found that it didn't work.  I tried it 
again and found that it still didn't work.

    root@notsomarlin:~# losetup /dev/loop/0 /tmp/foo
    root@notsomarlin:~# mke2fs /dev/loop/0
    ...
    root@notsomarlin:~# file /tmp/foo
    /tmp/foo: Linux rev 1.0 ext2 filesystem data
    root@notsomarlin:~# mkreiserfs /dev/loop/0
    ...
    ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/loop/0.
    root@notsomarlin:~# file /tmp/foo
    /tmp/foo: data

Do you get other results?  If not, it would seem that Debian's version 
of 'file' is broken, yet I checked the source code and there are magic 
numbers for reiserfs included.

Also, I check e2fsprogs and it is at version 1.35 in Debian unstable, 
but no tool called 'blkid' is included.

So I'm still searching for reliable methods to do this.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1699 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Clifford Beshers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1469 bytes --]

Argh.  It never fails.  I found 'blkid' in package libblkid1 immediately 
after I sent this.  Bad packaging by Debian.

Anyway, it works as advertised.  Thanks.

Clifford Beshers wrote:

>
> Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
>>>   * Is there a tool to determine the type of file system on a
>>>     partition without mounting it?
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Lots of them.  "file -s /dev/foo" or if you have a newer e2fsprogs (1.33
>>and newer I think) you can use "blkid [dev ...]" to tell you a bunch of
>>things about each device (LABEL, UUID, TYPE).
>>
>>
>>  
>>
> Very interesting.  Unfotunately, my results don't match yours.
>
> First, I had tried 'file' and found that it didn't work.  I tried it 
> again and found that it still didn't work.
>
>     root@notsomarlin:~# losetup /dev/loop/0 /tmp/foo
>     root@notsomarlin:~# mke2fs /dev/loop/0
>     ...
>     root@notsomarlin:~# file /tmp/foo
>     /tmp/foo: Linux rev 1.0 ext2 filesystem data
>     root@notsomarlin:~# mkreiserfs /dev/loop/0
>     ...
>     ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/loop/0.
>     root@notsomarlin:~# file /tmp/foo
>     /tmp/foo: data
>
> Do you get other results?  If not, it would seem that Debian's version 
> of 'file' is broken, yet I checked the source code and there are magic 
> numbers for reiserfs included.
>
> Also, I check e2fsprogs and it is at version 1.35 in Debian unstable, 
> but no tool called 'blkid' is included.
>
> So I'm still searching for reliable methods to do this.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2100 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Hans Reiser]

Clifford Beshers wrote:

>
>
> Our customers have complained about our boot times, so we've been 
> tracking things down and fixing them.  We were doing two passes of 
> mounting everything, one pass to figure out what was there, another to 
> let the traditional 'mountall' init script do its work.  We were 
> assuming that the mount times were constant and small.  But as the 
> disks are getting bigger, the second mount is noticeable, so we're 
> fixing that.  The first mount is definitely noticeable on the 2T 
> machine, but we figure if we do our jobs right, people should rarely 
> be rebooting anyway.
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
Well, if people care enough about it, we can optimize it at a pretty 
small cost in time, and we will do so if a sponsor like Lindows asks us 
for it.  Otherwise we'll focus on getting that compression plugin out 
the door, etc.....

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Paul Wagland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 728 bytes --]


On May 13, 2004, at 7:43, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Well, if people care enough about it, we can optimize it at a pretty 
> small cost in time, and we will do so if a sponsor like Lindows asks 
> us for it.  Otherwise we'll focus on getting that compression plugin 
> out the door, etc.....

Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you already 
have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to give money 
"to a cause".

Just a thought, feel free to ignore it if you wish :-)

Cheers,
Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[mjt]

On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:04:34PM +0200, Paul Wagland wrote:
>
>Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
>list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
>those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
>repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you already 
>have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to give money 
>"to a cause".

Pass the hat around :)

Problem just is that the repacker is probably commercial for a reason.
The reason being that it provides income at a steady pace. If it were
"pledged" it would give some money, sure, but not at a steady pace.

I'm surprised if Hans hasn't given this some thought, being the logical
extension of the $25 helpdesk.

Maybe the biggest problem is safe money transactions. You don't just
deal to a foreign country, you deal out of the European Union.

And then there's this one country with a fairly large population that 
STILL hasn't moved beyond money checks. The one with fifty states.

-- 
mjt

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Hans Reiser]

Paul Wagland wrote:

>
> On May 13, 2004, at 7:43, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Well, if people care enough about it, we can optimize it at a pretty 
>> small cost in time, and we will do so if a sponsor like Lindows asks 
>> us for it.  Otherwise we'll focus on getting that compression plugin 
>> out the door, etc.....
>
>
> Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
> list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
> those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
> repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you 
> already have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to 
> give money "to a cause".
>
> Just a thought, feel free to ignore it if you wish :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Paul

Maybe we need to ask for volunteers to create a pledge page.;-)

Seriously though, it is a good idea, though I note that it only got 
$1000 for gentoo despite being slashdotted....

My mother (Beverly, who did our art on our website) is working on a 
Namesys tee shirt to sell on our website, maybe we should add the word 
"supporter" to the tee shirt.

Hans

Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[Hans Reiser]

 From the email below I realized I had forgotten to announce this.  We 
will answer any question we can answer in half an hour for $25

More below.

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:04:34PM +0200, Paul Wagland wrote:
>  
>
>>Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
>>list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
>>those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
>>repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you already 
>>have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to give money 
>>"to a cause".
>>    
>>
>
>Pass the hat around :)
>
>Problem just is that the repacker is probably commercial for a reason.
>The reason being that it provides income at a steady pace. If it were
>"pledged" it would give some money, sure, but not at a steady pace.
>
>I'm surprised if Hans hasn't given this some thought, being the logical
>extension of the $25 helpdesk.
>
>Maybe the biggest problem is safe money transactions. You don't just
>deal to a foreign country, you deal out of the European Union.
>
>And then there's this one country with a fairly large population that 
>STILL hasn't moved beyond money checks. The one with fifty states.
>
>  
>
I haven't been able to get a large enough amount from distros to support 
us (but thanks to Lindows for being a major help), and darpa sponsors 
research not resizers, so I am thinking I might try selling the 
resizer.  Our fiscal situation remains quite awful, and the resizer 
might be a way to fund the enhanced semantics.  I guess it is time to 
try the mixed model in which we sell base code that is better than 
winfs/ext3, and some non-essential addons (like a resizer, maybe some 
non-essentail plugins, etc., ) are for sale and they fund the free 
stuff.  I really want to see free software work as a business, so I keep 
trying things.  Governments are not really set up to fund free software 
effectively yet, they fund research which is not quite the same as 
products that are usable.

Support does not make much money, a few hundred a month.....  hopefully 
us accepting visa cards will improve this.

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[mjt]

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:07:28AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:

>I haven't been able to get a large enough amount from distros to support 
>us (but thanks to Lindows for being a major help), and darpa sponsors 
>research not resizers, so I am thinking I might try selling the 

I have always tried to keep a safe distance from economic messes like this.
What you're saying is that they sponsor research, they give money, but
you can't pay salaries with that money?

>Support does not make much money, a few hundred a month.....  hopefully 
>us accepting visa cards will improve this.

How would you say this situation has changed over the years?
Better to worse since the dotcom boom, or?

-- 
mjt

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[Hans Reiser]

Markus Törnqvist wrote:

>On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:07:28AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I haven't been able to get a large enough amount from distros to support 
>>us (but thanks to Lindows for being a major help), and darpa sponsors 
>>research not resizers, so I am thinking I might try selling the 
>>    
>>
>
>I have always tried to keep a safe distance from economic messes like this.
>What you're saying is that they sponsor research, they give money, but
>you can't pay salaries with that money?
>  
>
well, we spent all the money....

and the new money has to be spent on security stuff, not on resizers.

>  
>
>>Support does not make much money, a few hundred a month.....  hopefully 
>>us accepting visa cards will improve this.
>>    
>>
>
>How would you say this situation has changed over the years?
>Better to worse since the dotcom boom, or?
>
>  
>
Techbust nearly but not quite destroyed us (DARPA saved us), and now 
things are starting to boom again, so we should be happy.  In the short 
term, we are suffering, but things are clearly improving and in a year I 
think we will be prosperous.

Hans

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:43:55AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Techbust nearly but not quite destroyed us (DARPA saved us), and now 
> things are starting to boom again, so we should be happy.  In the short 
> term, we are suffering, but things are clearly improving and in a year I 
> think we will be prosperous.
> 

i hope the best wishes for you and your stuff :)

cheers
domenico

-----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok
 --[ http://people.debian.org/~cavok/gpgkey.asc
   ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936  4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[Redeeman]

On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 19:07, Hans Reiser wrote:
>  From the email below I realized I had forgotten to announce this.  We 
> will answer any question we can answer in half an hour for $25
> 
> More below.
> 
> Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 10:04:34PM +0200, Paul Wagland wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
> >>list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
> >>those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
> >>repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you already 
> >>have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to give money 
> >>"to a cause".
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Pass the hat around :)
> >
> >Problem just is that the repacker is probably commercial for a reason.
> >The reason being that it provides income at a steady pace. If it were
> >"pledged" it would give some money, sure, but not at a steady pace.
> >
> >I'm surprised if Hans hasn't given this some thought, being the logical
> >extension of the $25 helpdesk.
> >
> >Maybe the biggest problem is safe money transactions. You don't just
> >deal to a foreign country, you deal out of the European Union.
> >
i believe this is true. i had a question, which i was ready to pay for.
also, a note that it will be answered quickly would make ppl pay, but if
it doesent accept paypal or something, its hard for ppl to pay. i was
lucky ppl on the list answered :D

> >And then there's this one country with a fairly large population that 
> >STILL hasn't moved beyond money checks. The one with fifty states.
> >
> >  
> >
> I haven't been able to get a large enough amount from distros to support 
> us (but thanks to Lindows for being a major help), and darpa sponsors 
> research not resizers, so I am thinking I might try selling the 
> resizer.  Our fiscal situation remains quite awful, and the resizer 
> might be a way to fund the enhanced semantics.  I guess it is time to 
> try the mixed model in which we sell base code that is better than 
> winfs/ext3, and some non-essential addons (like a resizer, maybe some 
> non-essentail plugins, etc., ) are for sale and they fund the free 
> stuff.  I really want to see free software work as a business, so I keep 
> trying things.  Governments are not really set up to fund free software 
> effectively yet, they fund research which is not quite the same as 
> products that are usable.
i dont think you will gain anything from selling the resize'er, or any
other plugins. people would just warez it. however, setup paypal! i'd be
ready to donate!

> 
> Support does not make much money, a few hundred a month.....  hopefully 
> us accepting visa cards will improve this.
-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments

Re: 2 Terabyte install

[Redeeman]

On Sat, 2004-05-15 at 23:28, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Paul Wagland wrote:
> 
> >
> > On May 13, 2004, at 7:43, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> >> Well, if people care enough about it, we can optimize it at a pretty 
> >> small cost in time, and we will do so if a sponsor like Lindows asks 
> >> us for it.  Otherwise we'll focus on getting that compression plugin 
> >> out the door, etc.....
> >
> >
> > Just a thought... Have you considered a "pledge" page? I.e, put up a 
> > list of features, and then allow people to "pledge" donations for when 
> > those features are finished. I for one would pledge 10USD for the 
> > repacker/disk optimiser, and yes, I know it isn't much, but you 
> > already have my donation for nothing :-) And, people often prefer to 
> > give money "to a cause".
> >
> > Just a thought, feel free to ignore it if you wish :-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Paul
> 
> Maybe we need to ask for volunteers to create a pledge page.;-)
> 
> Seriously though, it is a good idea, though I note that it only got 
> $1000 for gentoo despite being slashdotted....
> 
> My mother (Beverly, who did our art on our website) is working on a 
> Namesys tee shirt to sell on our website, maybe we should add the word 
> "supporter" to the tee shirt.
YES! i have been called a walking ad just for saying how good reiser4
is, im sure a tshirt wont hurt my reputation ;)

> 
> Hans
-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[mjt]

On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:22:17PM +0200, Redeeman wrote:
>i dont think you will gain anything from selling the resize'er, or any
>other plugins. people would just warez it. however, setup paypal! i'd be
>ready to donate!

Call me naive, but I don't think people are indecent enough to warez
this. Maybe some people would think twice if the price tag was ok and
the resizer and stuff would ship with a note "warezing this ransomware
will cause us severe damage, please don't do it"

As far as paypal is concerned, it's a user-space kludge for a 
kernel-space problem for real. Money should move from one account
to another, not from a credit card via a dealer to a virtual account.

Besides, see this:
http://www.paypalsucks.com/

-- 
mjt

Re: Namesys now accepts Visa cards on our website (support questions and donations both)

[Redeeman]

On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 20:37, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:22:17PM +0200, Redeeman wrote:
> >i dont think you will gain anything from selling the resize'er, or any
> >other plugins. people would just warez it. however, setup paypal! i'd be
> >ready to donate!
> 
> Call me naive, but I don't think people are indecent enough to warez
> this. Maybe some people would think twice if the price tag was ok and
> the resizer and stuff would ship with a note "warezing this ransomware
> will cause us severe damage, please don't do it"
lets just face it, warez exists for REAL, and i know, that if i suddenly
needed some application, i could warez it, to get it fast, even though i
then decided to buy it, i might forget.
hell (sorry language) winex exists warezed too, and they even have
anonymous cvs access!!

maybe some kind of policy that said companies should buy, private
persons shouldnt. but all i can say is that if you create a product that
the ppl want, and they have to buy, most of them will warez.
> 
> As far as paypal is concerned, it's a user-space kludge for a 
> kernel-space problem for real. Money should move from one account
> to another, not from a credit card via a dealer to a virtual account.
> 
> Besides, see this:
> http://www.paypalsucks.com/
-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments