Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Watch Out For BCache Corruption Issues On Linux 5.0 & GCC 9

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    ...
    OK, I've just installed Ubuntu 18.04, totally default installation parameters in VirtualBox. I did not change anything at all. Guess what, it does not allow me to shrink the root filesystem. You're busted and I don't wanna discuss this any more. ;-) Next time find more reliable links and probably record videos to prove your words. It doesn't take long to download ubuntu-18.04.2-desktop-amd64.iso and install in in a VM. I've spent less than 5 minutes on that. Just to prove I've actually did it, here's this ISO sha512sum (not yet published on the internet):

    Code:
    07821b29b372dedc293fac33da1cc5575d656ad83f87f96e709e770b9057c0492640f945c4711b7feb602275c3404b107d12cca0d5656f2a3c51161424d7a671
    I absolutely love that some people "like" your posts without ever leaving any comments. It perfectly shows how unintelligent they are since they choose sides without checking facts. Total believers in Linux superiority. What a beautiful Linux parish we have here.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by birdie View Post
      Let's try this unique recipe which I'm sure as hell you've never tested. In a fully updated Fedora 30:
      Funny you missed the partx -u . Partitions in use can have their current size updated as long as you have not moved their starting point.

      Sorry I had fully tested it. You missed why partx -a and partx -u were listed and only tested partx -a. Yes different versions of gparted are smart enough to use the correct partx commands based on if a partition is mounted or not.

      Sorry birdie I had tested it on Fedora 30 and debian testing. Helps if you are competent before you attempt a list of commands.

      https://www.2daygeek.com/how-to-relo...system-reboot/
      Basically everyone read over this link and notice birdie missed a command.

      Just because there is not a youtube video does not mean there is not a method. You really need to read my limitations carefully those where a hint you were looking for a update not a full partition table read on active partitions.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

        Funny you missed the partx -u . Partitions in use can have their current size updated as long as you have not moved their starting point.

        Sorry I had fully tested it. You missed why partx -a and partx -u were listed and only tested partx -a. Yes different versions of gparted are smart enough to use the correct partx commands based on if a partition is mounted or not.

        Sorry birdie I had tested it on Fedora 30 and debian testing. Helps if you are competent before you attempt a list of commands.

        https://www.2daygeek.com/how-to-relo...system-reboot/
        Basically everyone read over this link and notice birdie missed a command.

        Just because there is not a youtube video does not mean there is not a method. You really need to read my limitations carefully those where a hint you were looking for a update not a full partition table read on active partitions.
        You'll soon see my post which is currently hidden for no obvious reasons where I show how online shrinking of the root fs in Ubuntu 18.04 is not possible.

        Code:
        partx -u
        So you are back to cryptic console commands (and how the user is supposed to know such a command exists in the first place? by extensively googling for hours?) and you're trying to say that cryptic Linux CLI is a counterpart to easy Windows GUI. Nice attempt but overall a complete failure.

        I argued that Windows partition management is miles easier and simpler than in Linux. You keep proving my words yet you're disagreeing with me.

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by birdie View Post
          No USB flash drive is required in Windows.
          Whatever. You do not need command line on Linux, contrary to your claim, which you haven't retracted even after being called out on it.

          Originally posted by birdie View Post
          Over two dozen of Windows licenses I've bought on Ebay and other places are all functional. Ebay sellers who sell such licenses have over 98% positive ratings. You anecdotal journalistic evidence is anecdotal. Also, again, for the deaf among us, Windows 10 OEM license costs $100. Anyone can afford that. Stop with your BS.
          For one, you have bought keys, not licenses. I never made any point about pricing. And two dozen of your anecdotes still remain anecdotes.
          Originally posted by birdie View Post
          Beside the point.
          Not at all. It disproves your claim that fraud in Windows key sellers this is somehow a fringe problem.

          Here is one report from respected German IT publisher Heise:
          https://www.heise.de/select/ct/2019/1/1546165282580014
          Out of 5 test purchases of "Windows 10 Professional" on ebay, they got only 3 retail keys, while the other two were MAK keys (which allow a predetermined number of activations).
          Of the 3 retail keys, one was a Windows 10 key, one Windows 8.1 key and one Windows 7 key.

          Maybe you want to check your keys too with Showkey Plus or something.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by birdie View Post

            The fact that Windows does not allow you to move system files, including some files from your user account, doesn't invalidate my previous points. It shows some Windows limitations which have existed since Windows 95/NT 3.51 and I'm not even slightly inconvenienced by them. You can think of many crazy things you can't do in Windows but resizing volumes is available out of the box for the most stupid people out there.
            1. Given the fact that most users with SSD + HDD will run out of the disk space on their C partition (usually SSD) sooner than later, makes my use case (being able to move C:\Users and C:\Program Files) far more important that you seem to suggest.

            2, More-ever, trying to move OS files / user data / software from an SSD to HDD without using 3rd party tools (E.g. EaseUS, Paragaon, etc) will usually end up with complete re-installation.
            Trying to do so with no 3'rd party tools will require dropping to an admin command shell (Unless you're stupid enough to use explorer, in which case, via con dios, and have a USB Windows installation disk handy, you'll need it).

            3. As pointed above, Linux has a far better tool to partition the storage, LVM, which literally runs circles around Window's basic dynamic disk management and storage spaces. Insisting on using partition tables when you have LVM, is simply, for the lack of a better word, stupid.
            a. LVM partitions (Logical volumes) are completely detached from the physical volume they use as a back-end. You can resize them, move them between different storage devices and storage device types, strip them across different devices, etc. All without a single reboot.
            b. Most distributions either default to using LVM or offer LVM as a well supported alternative (Yes, even Ubuntu).
            c. While LVM GUI management tools are usually less impressive than their Windows partition management tool, they usually get the basic job done. (Though I would admit that at least as far as I know, the deprecated system-config-lvm tool is still better than KDE's and GNOME's disk management tools).

            As such I would suggest you fix your initial assertion:
            LOL. In Windows I go to disk manager and resize all my volumes using GUI without even rebooting *.

            * As long as you don't use an SSD to host your Windows partition and you're running out of physical space, in which case, you would be required to purchase expensive 3'rd party tools or you'll be f***cked.
            BTW, if you look at my signature below you'll notice that all of my machines are using multiple disks, including my Windows box. Please assume that my anecdotal evidence isn't based solely on my use case, but on many others as well (due to day job, see above), and as such, is either equivalent or suppresses yours anecdotal evidence.

            - Gilboa
            Last edited by gilboa; 05-16-2019, 07:55 PM.
            DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 32GB, 6x2TB, GTX1080, F30/x86_64, Dell UP3216Q 4K.
            SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 6x2TB, GTX550, F30/x86_64, Dell U2711.
            WIN: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 5x1TB, GTX980, Win10Pro.
            LAP: ASUS Strix GL502V, i7-6700HQ, 32GB, 1TB+256GB, 1070M, F30/x86_64.

            Comment


            • #56
              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              You'll soon see my post which is currently hidden for no obvious reasons where I show how online shrinking of the root fs in Ubuntu 18.04 is not possible.
              Online shrinking is not support by ext partition types so that is no surprise.
              https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...a-basic-volume
              Event 259. So active windows partition can refuse to shrink as well.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MELYA68qQyo
              Its not like it absolutely impossible to online shrink the root fs on a Ubuntu 18.04. Just there are a few conditions. One you did not use the default EXT4 instead had used a partition type like btrfs that support online shrinking.
              https://gparted.org/features.php you have the choice of two Linux native file systems if you want to live shrink. btrfs ornilfs2.

              Interesting point with btrfs online shrink there is no unmovable files. Only error you get is if you asked for a disc size smaller than storage required to store the files.

              It is possible if you are kind of insane todo a online migration from ext4 to btrfs then resize the root fs of ubuntu that is now btrfs. Please note the recommend way with ext4 to btrfs for the root file system is reboot but you can decide to skip that.

              So I don't need to see you post to know you are speaking out your ass. Reality you can shrink the root fs of Ubuntu 18.04 its just excessively complex and means you have to stop using Ext4. If this is a good idea is another mater.

              Interesting point all these steps can be done in some versions/builds of gparted. Yes the online convert from ext4 to btrfs and the online shrink of btrfs on the rootfs.

              Originally posted by birdie View Post
              Code:
              partx -u
              So you are back to cryptic console commands (and how the user is supposed to know such a command exists in the first place? by extensively googling for hours?) and you're trying to say that cryptic Linux CLI is a counterpart to easy Windows GUI. Nice attempt but overall a complete failure.
              That command is in both the redhat and debian administration guides. Of course people don't read the manual. So it should not take hours to find that command and those guides like the Microsoft Windows one adds a stack of warning.

              Like the Linux administrator guide if planing to be resizing partitions to install using LVM as this provides many safeguards when resizing that normal disc partitioning does not. So using partx -u is kind of discouraged.

              The Microsoft Windows Administrator guide tells you not to shrink a partition without backing up first yet the GUI does not give this warning.

              The reality is I could have showing you a video using gparted resizing the Ubuntu 18.04 Ext4 rootfs partition to a Smaller Btrfs while its online all nice and graphical. The CLI tools are used in background and you would pick up a different version of gparted and it would not work for you. This is something that does annoy me that depending on the version of gparted and the build options depends if particular things work or not.

              Some gparted versions/builds you can shrink online btrfs others you cannot. Some gparted versions/builds you can resize non lvm partitions while active mount others you cannot. Some gparted versions you can perform the btrfs convert on ext2-4 partitions others you cannot.

              A genuine complaint is that gparted between distributions feature wise is highly inconstant.

              Reality half your complaint is really that gparted is feature inconstant. Like you would not never need to know about partx -u if all gparted just supported it out box.

              Something to take note of is that ext4 is not the worst file system option for shrinking. xfs by current designs you cannot even shrink offline. Only option with xfs is rebuild the partition.

              You asked me for a video without understand that i could make a video doing everything GUI. If you could replicate it that would be another problem to work out why you could not replicate you would need to know the command line stuff to work out where your problems were.

              Windows has less versions/builds of stuff. Linux multi builds of stuff sometimes causes serous hell. Gparted is one of those serous hell points.

              Comment


              • #57
                Was there ever a root cause for this bcache corruption issue?

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by gilboa View Post

                  I'm a bit late to the game, but due to the native of the (cross platform) software my company is developing we've been doing ____extensive___ benchmarks on any combination of software (proprietary, FS, databases), OS (Linux, BSD, Windows server) and hardware (single drive HDD / SSD, to 500TB+ in HDD RAID 50/60 and 100+ TB SSD RAID10/50/60).
                  In nearly all benchmarks (beyond static sequential read and write) Windows is considerably slower. But how much? 5% to 95%.
                  E.g. Some operations, such as creating new files or deleting old files in __huge__ directories (with 100,000 of files) Windows can be 20-30 times (!) slower than Linux. Same goes when trashing the FS with _huge_ amount concurrent I/O write requests.

                  Now, Linux is not created equal, far from it. In most operations we found that ext4 is _faster_ than xfs, as long as you are crazy enough to partition your storage into small chunks. (We actually use 1TB chunks are distribute the load between them, managing 512 partitions is nothing to sneeze at).

                  Never the less, I should point out that:
                  1. Windows server 2K16 is considerably faster than Windows server 2K12 / 2K8 (we're yet to do considerable testing on Windows server 2K19).
                  2. I doubt that anything I said has any bearing if you're a desktop user (Unless you use software RAID, as both disk manager built RAID and storage spaces both still perform poorly compared to MDRAID).

                  - Gilboa
                  compare HDDs usability on XP and linux operating system.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post

                    compare HDDs usability on XP and linux operating system.
                    Shouldn't you compare Windows XP to Fedora 12 / Ubuntu 8.04 / RHEL 5.x, as opposed to Fedora 30 / Ubuntu 19.x?
                    Unless you are intentionally comparing Apples to Oranges...?

                    (BTW: For the sake of pure fun, I used to run CentOS 7.x on a laptop the previously ran Windows XP, and CentOS 7 performed much better, especially if you enabled A/V on the XP OS)

                    - Gilboa
                    DEV: Intel S2600C0, 2xE5-2658V2, 32GB, 6x2TB, GTX1080, F30/x86_64, Dell UP3216Q 4K.
                    SRV: Intel S5520SC, 2xX5680, 36GB, 6x2TB, GTX550, F30/x86_64, Dell U2711.
                    WIN: Gigabyte B85M-HD3, E3-1245V3, 32GB, 5x1TB, GTX980, Win10Pro.
                    LAP: ASUS Strix GL502V, i7-6700HQ, 32GB, 1TB+256GB, 1070M, F30/x86_64.

                    Comment


                    • #60
                      Originally posted by xorbe View Post
                      Was there ever a root cause for this bcache corruption issue?
                      What I came here for. Instead it's 5 pages of an off-topic pissing match, so annoying.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X