On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:12:37PM -0500, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: AFAIK, ReiserFS block sizes are stuck at 4KB unless someone changed that while I wasn't looking. -- Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Nick Reinking wrote: It's 2.4.7. I've been reluctant to do a kernel upgrade for fear of making it unbootable and subjecting Jason to another 3-hour journey. :) Had I thought of it at the time, we should have gone ahead and done it when he was there dealing with the recent crash. If we just install the RedHat RPMs it should in theory be fairly painless, but I'm not too familiar with how the red hat boot goodies are set up or how to make it fall back to the previous kernel after the first reboot if the new one doesn't work. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:50:35PM -0500, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote: I'm pretty sure if it breaks, you can still select the old kernel from a list (RH uses GRUB, I believe). So, you still have to be there once to boot it to the old kernel, and then you can change the boot configuration. Still, are we really going to want to jump to 2.6 right away after it comes out? 2.4 had quite a bit of teething problems until fairly late in the game. -- Nick Reinking -- eschewing obfuscation since 1981 -- Minneapolis, MN

Our servers use LILO. I've never taken the time to learn about GRUB, so I can't abide to have it in use on a server that I end up working on. If the server is, in fact, using GRUB, I would be surprised. I am intrigued by this LILI option you mention. That's new to me, and it sounds pretty useful. Jason P.S. I will eventually be making another trip to San Diego, and I could always update the kernel while I'm there. Brion Vibber wrote: -- "Jason C. Richey" <jasonr(a)bomis.com>

Now seems like an awkward time for that, though, since it's my impression that 2.5.X is going to become stable 2.6 Real Soon Now, with new VMs, new threading, etc. Reiser 4 is just around the corner as well. Here's a thought: if we do plan to install a brand new server for the database, take advantage of that by doing something similar to what we did for the present server. Installing the latest stuff, making lots of tweaks, trashing it a few times if needed, until we get a setup that runs reliably and fast, test the hell out of it, then make a backup, move the database, and bring it up, prepared to switch back if all hell breaks loose. I'm thinking a machine that's dedicated to running one program (mysqld), attached to one client, can afford to be a little more on the bleeding edge and still be stable than one that has to serve hundreds of clients with dozens of apps like a typical ISP. -- Lee Daniel Crocker &lt;lee(a)piclab.com&gt; <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC