21 Aug
2018
21 Aug
'18
8:21 a.m.
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:55:28 +0200
"Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office(a)klepp.biz> wrote:
Am Dienstag, 21. August 2018 schrieb Nick Koretsky:
Yep. Exactly my thought when i spent 3-hours with a server refusing to boot
after migration to a new hdd (i used a stretch flash to copy). Who the fuck
toughs it was a good idea?!! Why not call it ext5 or ext4a or whatever?!!
--
Nick Koretsky (nick.koretsky(a)gmail.com)
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:20:43 +0200
"Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office(a)klepp.biz> wrote:
No, you are wrong. There were options added to ext4 which made it
incompatible with older kernels. And a few years ago they made this
options default. Debian wheezy kernel (3.2) would not mount ext4
created in debian stretch.
Hi!
Now that's a gotcha I did not know. How did it come that this was thought
of beeing a good idea?
Nik
Its tears so far Nik. There are so many differences just in the
ext4's used that one of them should be renamed, they will NOT cross
mount, ext4 disk to ext4 mount.
Hi Gene!
When you cannot mount the ext4 partions from one another, then there
is something very wrong. ext4 can be mounted as ext2 and that should
alway work - at least, if the drives and filesystems are ok.