[CentOS] Upgrade to 5.4 with an existing XFS-filesystem

Timo Schoeler timo.schoeler at riscworks.net
Thu Oct 22 13:39:50 UTC 2009

Hash: SHA1

thus Ross Walker spake:
| On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:11 AM, Bernhard Gschaider <bgschaid_lists at ice-sf.at
|  > wrote:
|>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:36:06 -0700
|>>>>>> "AY" == Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote:
|>    AY> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Bernhard Gschaider
|>    AY> <bgschaid_lists at ice-sf.at> wrote:
|>>> I've got a fileserver currently running under 5.3 with the
|>>> /home-partition being an XFS-filesystem. I use the kmod-xfs
|>>> from extras. It works great ;)
|>>> Now: as I understand it from the release-notes the 5.4 kernel
|>>> has XFS already built-in. Right? Or is it just a kmod-package
|>>> ("technology preview")
|>>> Now my question is: are there any recommendations for an
|>>> upgrade-procedure? I mean, I can probably manage, but I'll want
|>>> to minimize downtime
|>>> BTW: when doing "yum list updates" I don't see any
|>>> "kernel*"-packages in the list. Is this because the last kernel
|>>> from the 5.3-updates has the same build-numer (164 I think)?
|>>> And is the 5.4-base-kernel the same as the latest
|>>> 5.3-updates-kernel?
|>    AY> The -164 kernel is indeed from 5.4 and has xfs as a built-in
|>    AY> kernel module.  If you are already running this kernel, that
|>    AY> indicates all is well and no further action is needed.
|>    AY> Could you show us the output returned by:
|>    AY> ls -l `find /lib/modules -name xfs.ko`
|> Thanks for the hint: I did it (I'll spare you the listing). The
|> -164-kernel ist the first one where according to "rpm -qf <path>" the
|> module is "owned" by the kernel package. All the other instances of
|> xfs.ko point to a module "owned" by kmod-xfs.
|> So obviously I'm not using the kmod-xfs anymore (I'm relieved that the
|> last kernel-update worked without a clash)
|> Thanks again for clearing that up
|> Bernhard
|> BTW: yes. It is a x86_64-machine
| What version of XFS is supplied?
| Is it still true that RH doesn't supply xfsprogs and xfsdump so we
| need to use the ones in 'extras'?


| If so, wouldn't it be risky using the RH supplied kernel driver with
| third party supplied maintenance apps in case RH were to backport any
| XFS internal structs that the user progs don't know how to handle, or
| vice versa.
| I think I'll stick with the complete CentOS XFS bundle for a while and
| see what RH does.
| -Ross

Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the CentOS mailing list