On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote: > uptime=insecurity. This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need [security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security patches often. I almost said glibc, but on those Unixes it was libc; glibc, however, wasn't getting security patches too often some long time ago as well. Because these are only kernel and libc/glibc that do require reboot (no splice or similar for me on servers, thank you). It sounds to me like the system you are talking about, and us, sysadmins administering it, is pretty much in MS Widows ballpark already. Right? Sorry about my rant. I still consider not well debugged code not well debugged code... Valeri > Patches must be kept up these days or your uptime > won't matter when your server gets compromised. > > > On 4/22/2016 4:33 AM, Rob Townley wrote: >> tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as >> tune2fs against ext4. >> >> Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its >> usefulness? >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman >>> <matthew.garman at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> # rpm -qf `which tune2fs` >>>> e2fsprogs-1.41.12-18.el6.x86_64 >>> That's in the CentOS 6.4 repo, I don't see a newer one through 6.7 but >>> I didn't do a thorough check, just with google site: filter. >>> >>> >>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release >>>> CentOS release 6.5 (Final) >>>> # uname -a >>>> Linux lnxutil8 2.6.32-504.12.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 11 22:03:14 >>>> UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux >>> And that's a centosplus kernel in the 6.6 repo; while the regular >>> kernel for 6.7 is currently kernel-2.6.32-573.22.1.el6.src.rpm. So I'm >>> going to guess you'd have this problem even if you weren't using the >>> centosplus kernel. >>> >>> I suggest you do a yum upgrade anyway, 6.7 is current, clean it up, >>> test it, and then while chances are it's still a problem, then it's >>> probably a legit bug worth filing. In the meantime you'll have to >>> upgrade your e2fsprogs yourself. >>> >>> >>>> I did a little web searching on this, most of the hits were for much >>>> older systems, where (for example) the e2fsprogs only supported up to >>>> ext3, but the user had an ext4 filesystem. Obviously that's not the >>>> case here. In other words, the filesystem was created with the >>>> mkfs.ext4 binary from the same e2fsprogs package as the tune2fs binary >>>> I'm trying to use. >>>> >>>> Anyone ever seen anything like this? >>> Well the date of the kernel doesn't tell the whole story, so you need >>> a secret decoder ring to figure out what's been backported into this >>> distro kernels. There's far far less backporting happening in user >>> space tools. So it's not difficult for them to get stale when the >>> kernel is providing new features. But I'd say the kernel has newer >>> features than the progs supports and the progs are too far behind. >>> >>> And yes, this happens on the XFS list and the Btrfs list too where >>> people are using old progs with new kernels and it can be a problem. >>> Sometimes new progs and old kernels are a problem too but that's less >>> common. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chris Murphy >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CentOS mailing list >>> CentOS at centos.org >>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++