21 Aug
2018
21 Aug
'18
9:08 a.m.
On Tuesday 21 August 2018 08:21:12 Nick Koretsky wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:55:28 +0200
"Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office(a)klepp.biz> wrote:
+100
Now the question of the day is how the hell do we fix it?
--
Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
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?!! On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:20:43 +0200
"Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office(a)klepp.biz> wrote:
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.
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.