Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
thanks in advance
Darek Borkowski
Borkowski Dariusz wrote:
Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
thanks in advance
Darek Borkowski
at boot 'linux reiserfs selinux=0'
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:46 +0200, Borkowski Dariusz wrote:
Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
This has been answered numerous times on this list... You must disable selinux at boot.
linux reiserfs selinux=0
thanks in advance
Darek Borkowski
Wouldn't it be an anaconda bug not to do this, ie. not automatically disable SELinux (and warn about it) when reiserfs is used?
BTW. What does Reiser provide that ext does'nt?
ons, 27.10.2004 kl. 13.58 skrev Timothy Sandel:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 13:46 +0200, Borkowski Dariusz wrote:
Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
This has been answered numerous times on this list... You must disable selinux at boot.
linux reiserfs selinux=0
thanks in advance
Darek Borkowski
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:42 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
Wouldn't it be an anaconda bug not to do this, ie. not automatically disable SELinux (and warn about it) when reiserfs is used?
Well reiserfs is not supported, hence hidden behind using a special installer option for those unteachable souls that want reiserfs. I don't think Jeremy will put effort into anaconda making it work around deficiencies in unsupported file systems when he's got so much else to do ;-).
Nils
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 07:48, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 15:42 +0200, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
Wouldn't it be an anaconda bug not to do this, ie. not automatically disable SELinux (and warn about it) when reiserfs is used?
Well reiserfs is not supported, hence hidden behind using a special installer option for those unteachable souls that want reiserfs. I don't think Jeremy will put effort into anaconda making it work around deficiencies in unsupported file systems when he's got so much else to do ;-).
And it should no longer produce deadlock in FC3/final, as SELinux has been adjusted to not even try using the reiserfs xattr handlers until they are fixed.
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 07:46, Borkowski Dariusz wrote:
Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
In theory, there should no longer be a problem with reiserfs and SELinux in FC3/final. You won't get fine-grained file labeling, but it shouldn't deadlock the system anymore, as SELinux has been changed to just not call the reiserfs xattr handlers until someone fixes them upstream.
I am curious about the pros and cons of the various file systems. I have always used ext3. Is there any particular reason to use reiserfs ?
What benefits do you get ?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 09:33:58 -0400, Stephen Smalley sds@epoch.ncsc.mil wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 07:46, Borkowski Dariusz wrote:
Hi,
how to install FC3 with ReiseFS? I tried it with FC3test2 (after booting ISO typed: linux reiserfs) but installer stops just before formatting partitions. I sent a bug to bugzilla.redhat.com and someone replied that it was because of SELinux. I have question. It is possible to install (format) reiserfs partition with SELinux enabled? Or if not how to disable SELinux and enable ReiserFS?
In theory, there should no longer be a problem with reiserfs and SELinux in FC3/final. You won't get fine-grained file labeling, but it shouldn't deadlock the system anymore, as SELinux has been changed to just not call the reiserfs xattr handlers until someone fixes them upstream.
-- Stephen Smalley sds@epoch.ncsc.mil National Security Agency
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 09:40 -0400, Amitabha Roy wrote:
I am curious about the pros and cons of the various file systems. I have always used ext3. Is there any particular reason to use reiserfs ?
What benefits do you get ?
Don't even start, you're baiting the trolls... for some people, filesystems are a religious issue and you won't get much objectivity from asking that question.
reiser has always been more efficient than ext3 at handling large directories and at keeping small files small on-disk.
ext3 has been safer to use _in__the__past_ due to data corruption bugs in older versions of reiser (specifically earlier reiser3 versions). Reiser4 is so new that it hasn't gotten a shakedown, but since ext3 has been out for years its well understood and has been time-tested. Reiser3 has also been out for years and is well understood and tested.
Hans Reiser is an advocate of "everything is a file or directory," even file metadata. So, in his ideal world, a "file" would be a _directory_, inside which would be a containing the actual data, but also many other files that would contain the metadata about the "file" (file type perhaps, permissions, attributes, etc). This is probably why reiser handles directories so efficiently. This also puts him in conflict with people who just don't care about his reiser-is-the-future-everything- else-sucks attitude.
Dan
Which is or is not enabled by default?
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 16:32 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 10:01 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
reiser has always been more efficient than ext3 at handling large directories and at keeping small files small on-disk.
... until the 2.6 kernel where ext3 grew the htree extension ;)
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 17:02 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:44:26AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
Which is or is not enabled by default?
it is enabled by default on new filesystems since fc2
Can it be enabled for existing file systems?
Nils
On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 13:50 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 17:02 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 10:44:26AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
Which is or is not enabled by default?
it is enabled by default on new filesystems since fc2
Can it be enabled for existing file systems?
yes; you need to tune2fs and enable the flag (-O dir_index), and then fsck -D to fix up the existing directory structure.. (otherwise it only sticks for new directories)
Em Qua, 2004-10-27 às 10:40, Amitabha Roy escreveu:
I am curious about the pros and cons of the various file systems. I have always used ext3. Is there any particular reason to use reiserfs ? What benefits do you get ?
Take a look at Reiser's page. It looks like reiserfs was made for benchmarking.
Some people says it's faster, some people say it's safer. I use it as default in my own distribution (debian-based), and has not a single problem with it, even when electricity suddenly comes down. (This cannot be said for ext3, as a energy interruption screwed my redhat9 ext3 raid0 server).
Besides, I'm not aware of a resizing tool for reiser. It has its own problems and may not be good for everyone.
Well, If it was that good, it would be part of fedora's default install, don't you think?
What ReiserFS version Fedora Core can support for now?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:02:23 -0300, Alexandre Strube surak@casa.surak.eti.br wrote:
Em Qua, 2004-10-27 às 10:40, Amitabha Roy escreveu: I am curious about the pros and cons of the various file systems. I have
always used ext3. Is there any particular reason to use reiserfs ? What
benefits do you get ? Take a look at Reiser's page. It looks like reiserfs was made for benchmarking.
Some people says it's faster, some people say it's safer. I use it as default in my own distribution (debian-based), and has not a single problem with it, even when electricity suddenly comes down. (This cannot be said for ext3, as a energy interruption screwed my redhat9 ext3 raid0 server).
Besides, I'm not aware of a resizing tool for reiser. It has its own problems and may not be good for everyone.
Well, If it was that good, it would be part of fedora's default install, don't you think? --
[]s
Alexandre Ganso 500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto
Group
fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
SuSE 9.1 used reiser as defaut, didn't they?
Anyway, ill go for reiser when it becomes default for Fedora. ext is "good enough" anyway. And i must say, that my ext3 fs has survived incredible things in the past (including, but not limited to, heavy corruption due to HW failure. If only fsck would calculate the whereabouts of the extra super-inodes... Had to 1. use a rescue disk to dd the partition over to my main computer (thanks god for NFS!), just to get the size on disk 2. create a fs on a file which had the same size (an empty file created by dd) 3. get the whereabouts of the extra master inodes from there 4. run fsck from an alternate master inode. 5. lay something heavy on the "yes, do as you like, i dont have a clue about what you are talking about" button aka ENTER, and let it lay there for ten minutes, while it was asking at a rate of 20/secound (AT LEAST!)
But it came back up! I was a bit worried when the computer booted, and suddenly rhgb got distorted and it hung solidly... But i (fsck) got it back up!
that the disk died 2 months later (i can cat it, but the partitions is gone from /dev (even if the partitition table is there according to fdisk), is another case. But i rescued all data!
Kyrre
ons, 27.10.2004 kl. 16.02 skrev Alexandre Strube:
Em Qua, 2004-10-27 às 10:40, Amitabha Roy escreveu:
I am curious about the pros and cons of the various file systems. I have always used ext3. Is there any particular reason to use reiserfs ? What benefits do you get ?
Take a look at Reiser's page. It looks like reiserfs was made for benchmarking.
Some people says it's faster, some people say it's safer. I use it as default in my own distribution (debian-based), and has not a single problem with it, even when electricity suddenly comes down. (This cannot be said for ext3, as a energy interruption screwed my redhat9 ext3 raid0 server).
Besides, I'm not aware of a resizing tool for reiser. It has its own problems and may not be good for everyone.
Well, If it was that good, it would be part of fedora's default install, don't you think?
-- []s
Alexandre Ganso 500 FOUR vermelha - Diretor Steel Goose Moto Group
-- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 07:13, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
SuSE 9.1 used reiser as defaut, didn't they?
I think so, and SUSE are effectively maintaining ReiserFS 3 nowadays, Hans Reiser isn't interested in it anymore, he just wants to push Reiser4.
Anyway, ill go for reiser when it becomes default for Fedora.
You can safely assume that this is "never" (given that Reiser4 is a separate filesystem). If (huge "if"!) Reiser4 does dominate the world in a few years that might get used, but ReiserFS 3 is pretty much just kept alive by SUSE now, and is unlikely to see any major further development, not the least since Hans Reiser always actively tries to bad-mouth changes going into it, since he wants people to focus on Reiser4.
ext is "good enough" anyway.
And is actively developed and improved on.
/Per
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:47:11AM -0700, Per Bjornsson spake thusly:
not the least since Hans Reiser always actively tries to bad-mouth changes going into it, since he wants people to focus on Reiser4.
reiser3 is a stable production release. People shouldn't be making changes in it.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:04, Tracy R Reed treed@ultraviolet.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:47:11AM -0700, Per Bjornsson spake thusly:
not the least since Hans Reiser always actively tries to bad-mouth changes going into it, since he wants people to focus on Reiser4.
reiser3 is a stable production release. People shouldn't be making changes in it.
ext2 has been a stable production release for many years, but it has has XATTR and SE Linux support added. I don't think that there is any reason not to do the same for ReiserFS.
New features can't wait for everyone to use new file systems. Hans has decided not to support XATTRs, and as a consequence of that people who want to use SE Linux will make much less use of ReiserFS. This also impacts the ability of Red Hat to support ReiserFS.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
New features can't wait for everyone to use new file systems. Hans has decided not to support XATTRs
Wrong, reiserfs XATTRs were added in 2002.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=103765962910834&w=2
If you will check the config options for 2.6.8.1 youll see CONFIG_REISERFS_FS_XATTR ...
and as a consequence of that people who want to use SE Linux will make much less use of ReiserFS. This also impacts the ability of Red Hat to support ReiserFS.
If selinux cant run on reiserfs, its not because its missing XATTRs, because theyre not missing.
-Dan
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:53, Dan Hollis wrote:
Wrong, reiserfs XATTRs were added in 2002.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=103765962910834&w=2
If you will check the config options for 2.6.8.1 youll see CONFIG_REISERFS_FS_XATTR ...
xattr support for reiserfs was only added to the mainline Linux kernel very recently, and only over the objections of Hans Reiser to any new features in reiserfs (version 3). Russell's statement is correct. See http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=108299878822391&w=2. reiserfs xattr support was maintained as a separate patch by SuSE for a long time, but that does not mean that Hans has ever supported them or that the mainline kernel supported them until very recently.
If selinux cant run on reiserfs, its not because its missing XATTRs, because theyre not missing.
While xattr support does now exist for reiserfs in the mainline kernel, there are problems in using it for SELinux; implementing the xattrs as regular files leads to deadlock when SELinux and reiserfs interact during xattr setup. Those problems have been reported to the reiserfs maintainers for some time, along with proposed patches to address the issues, but they have failed to act on them to date.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Stephen Smalley wrote:
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:53, Dan Hollis wrote:
If selinux cant run on reiserfs, its not because its missing XATTRs, because theyre not missing.
While xattr support does now exist for reiserfs in the mainline kernel, there are problems in using it for SELinux; implementing the xattrs as regular files leads to deadlock when SELinux and reiserfs interact during xattr setup. Those problems have been reported to the reiserfs maintainers for some time, along with proposed patches to address the issues, but they have failed to act on them to date.
Presumably you reported the problems to chris and jeff who actually wrote the patch, and not hans who objected to the patch?
-Dan
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 03:53, Dan Hollis goemon@anime.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
New features can't wait for everyone to use new file systems. Hans has decided not to support XATTRs
Wrong, reiserfs XATTRs were added in 2002.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=103765962910834&w=2
I think that you are trying to mislead people. See the following URL from the same thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=reiserfs&m=103542341128072&w=2
In response to a question about when ReiserFS will support XATTR Hans says that Reiser4 will do it.
As far as I am aware the ReiserFS XATTR code was added to the 2.6.x tree in spite of objections from Hans.
If you will check the config options for 2.6.8.1 youll see CONFIG_REISERFS_FS_XATTR ...
We all know that.
and as a consequence of that people who want to use SE Linux will make much less use of ReiserFS. This also impacts the ability of Red Hat to support ReiserFS.
If selinux cant run on reiserfs, its not because its missing XATTRs, because theyre not missing.
If XATTR support had been in ReiserFS with support from Namesys since 2002 then SE Linux support would be there.
Incidentally the URL you cite contains an explanation of why SE Linux doesn't support persistent labels on ReiserFS. It's because internally XATTRs are treated as files to preserve the metadata format. If Hans had supported XATTRs then probably the metadata format would have a minor revision for them and this would never have been a problem.
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Alexandre Strube wrote:
Some people says it's faster, some people say it's safer. I use it as default in my own distribution (debian-based), and has not a single problem with it, even when electricity suddenly comes down. (This cannot be said for ext3, as a energy interruption screwed my redhat9 ext3 raid0 server).
Same here, we've had numerous catastrophic filesystem failures with ext3 in production systems.
-Dan
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:21:30AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Same here, we've had numerous catastrophic filesystem failures with ext3 in production systems.
Should only occur on drive failure, things like bad ram, and IDE drives when you hard reboot and don't have them set to writethrough caching.
What releases ?
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:21:30AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Same here, we've had numerous catastrophic filesystem failures with ext3 in production systems.
Should only occur on drive failure, things like bad ram, and IDE drives when you hard reboot and don't have them set to writethrough caching.
Happened on power failures or on situations that called for the red button (eg runaway processes etc).
What releases ?
2.4.x kernels, which we also use reiserfs on. reiserfs didn't fail under the exact same situations on the exact same hardware. we have a few legacy systems still on ext3 but we are upgrading them to reiserfs as we get the chance.
fwiw we also had bad experiences with xfs.
-Dan
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:02:23AM -0300, Alexandre Strube spake thusly:
Besides, I'm not aware of a resizing tool for reiser. It has its own problems and may not be good for everyone.
I use resize_reiserfs to resize the fs for lvm operations and it works great.
-
Alan Cox -
Alexandre Strube -
Amitabha Roy -
Arjan van de Ven -
Borkowski Dariusz -
Dan Hollis -
Dan Williams -
Féliciano Matias -
Joel Juliano -
Kyrre Ness Sjobak -
Mazli Alias -
Nils Philippsen -
Per Bjornsson -
Russell Coker -
Stephen Smalley -
Timothy Sandel -
Tracy Reed