-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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'? http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.4#head-29511ff6659f6463d444feb92326ed2232fc8c08 | 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 Timo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFK4GCmfg746kcGBOwRAt97AJ9gqcDNowwtMDUOsrnys8Qdu+UtnwCgtbhQ iQfHQ2UZ3o6rTrXN9UzU0QA= =bIOT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----