linux-lvm.redhat.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian
@ 1999-08-20 18:15 Drew Smith
  1999-08-20 21:09 ` Ryan Murray
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Drew Smith @ 1999-08-20 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm


	Hello, all.

	Just joined in on the list - of course, to show proper etiquette, I
read the archives first, to catch up on the topics discussed.  Something
I didn't see, however, were comments on the stablility of the LVM code
under Debian Potato.

	Some background - I'm an AIX guy, working for a consulting company that
specializes in storage management.  Wow, that sound WAY less fun than it
actually is - basically, I'm a 23-year-old, fifth-year linux geek who
managed to land a job doing unix-ish things.

	Some more background - in our house, we're running just under 200G of
disk - the shoutcast "BeNOW" (http://www.benow.org) is running in the
server room, right off my bedroom.  I'm not the originator of it, but
I'm a full partner and am the administrator of the servers it runs on.

	And even more - we have friends, here in Calgary, that have the
reclaimant contracts on used gear.  Basically, they pick up truckloads
of Unix hardware from large corporations, give them tax credits, and
sell it all off.  They've got exclusive contracts with a lot of places,
so they're an incredible resource.  They're not out to turn a profit,
just make a living - so incredible deals.
	The deal I'm referring mostly to is the "9G fullheight Seagate SCSI
drive, 1M cache, 5500 RPM, 9ms access" for $50 CAD.  We bought eight. 
LVM comes into play here.

	So I did manage to get 0.7 to compile happily under Debian - using
2.2.10-ac12.  This was difficult, and I've discovered why - either
Debian or LVM isn't properly referencing where the includes are stored. 
My fix was:

	cd /root/LVM/0.7/tools
	ln -s /usr/src/linux/includes/linux linux
	make

	This worked.

	I plugged in four of the 9G drives - would have been eight, but I blew
one of the two power supplies in the "cube" (a four-beside-four
fullheight enclosure) when I didn't set the drives to delayed powerup. 
I created a 33G volume group called "rootvg" (sue me, I learned LVM on
AIX) and created a 33G lv called lv01 inside that.

	My problems begin here - it worked happily!  I shared it out to the
others via Samba, and they happily drug and dropped mass quantities of
.MP3's to it.  After a while, it crashed.

	I'm sort of hypothesizing that it crashed as it hit the end of the
first drive - I'm only doing a linear setup, no stripes.  Roughly at the
time that it WOULD have hit 9G, it locked the system solid, requiring a
power-down.  Unfortunately, the machine doesn't have a head most of the
time, so no errors were noted.

	Since then, I've compiled 2.2.11-ac3, and have been working on getting
the same setup running again - with one exception.  I tried to put a
fifth drive in the machine, INSIDE the actual desktop case - and it
seems I don't own a single 50-pin ribbon cable that is clean enough to
avoid timeouts.  At 2am, I powered it off and left it for my bed - had
to be up at 6 for work.

	To give a long story another paragraph, I'll be continuing the struggle
tonight. Has anyone had any problems with stability under Debian, and/or
tracked down what those might stem from?  I'm running the machine now
with it's own monitor (a rarity in the server room - nearing 20 machines
now) and keyboard, constantly keeping an eye on it.  I'll be setting it
up again tonight with the same setup, 33G, but most likely striped.

	Looking through the list, I don't see many people detailing what they
ARE doing with LVM, just what they CAN'T do, and asking for help.  I
apologize if I've offended anyone with the length of this post - but
this is what I like to read, and I'd love to see what other people are
doing with this software.  If it's to be included in kernel 2.4, we'd
damn well better push it to it's limits! :)

	Cheers,
	- Drew.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian
  1999-08-20 18:15 [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian Drew Smith
@ 1999-08-20 21:09 ` Ryan Murray
  1999-08-20 22:41   ` Drew Smith
  1999-08-23 14:12   ` Brian Wolfe
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Ryan Murray @ 1999-08-20 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 12:15:55PM -0600, Drew Smith wrote:
> 	So I did manage to get 0.7 to compile happily under Debian - using
> 2.2.10-ac12.  This was difficult, and I've discovered why - either
> Debian or LVM isn't properly referencing where the includes are stored. 
> My fix was:

I haven't actually compiled the tools under debian myself.  Debian does
not have /usr/include/linux matching up with the kernel release, so any
patches you might do to the kernel won't show up.

> 	My problems begin here - it worked happily!  I shared it out to the
> others via Samba, and they happily drug and dropped mass quantities of
> .MP3's to it.  After a while, it crashed.

Was there anything recorded by syslog?  How did it crash?

> 	I'm sort of hypothesizing that it crashed as it hit the end of the
> first drive - I'm only doing a linear setup, no stripes.  Roughly at the

I've got about 40GB of mix'n'match drives -- 12GB IDE's, .5GB SCSIs,
full height, half height, a real mix of everything, so striping wouldn't
help that much.  If you are using ext2fs on the lv, you'll hit all over
the drives, so there won't be a "just before the second drive".  ext2fs
will space out the files all over the lv.

> time that it WOULD have hit 9G, it locked the system solid, requiring a
> power-down.  Unfortunately, the machine doesn't have a head most of the
> time, so no errors were noted.

Do you have magic sys-rq compiled in?  This could be useful...

> 	Since then, I've compiled 2.2.11-ac3, and have been working on getting
> the same setup running again - with one exception.  I tried to put a

I've been using 2.2.10-ac12 and 2.2.11-ac1, althought -ac1 has known TCP
problems...

> seems I don't own a single 50-pin ribbon cable that is clean enough to
> avoid timeouts.  At 2am, I powered it off and left it for my bed - had

Yes, that can be a problem.  It's also a problem when one drive dies and
you aren't running raid on it at any level.  When using older full
height SCSI drives in stripe/linear, if you don't add raid to it
somewhere, you are only as strong as the weakest drive.  I dunno if I'd
trust heavily used drives nearing the end of their life...

> tonight. Has anyone had any problems with stability under Debian, and/or
> tracked down what those might stem from?  I'm running the machine now

I'm running debian potato on one machine, but it isn't running LVM.  The
LVM system is a Slackware 4.0 system, still on libc5.  Maybe it is libc?
 If you are running the latest from potato (2.1.x) it may not be
compatible with the tools as is, I dunno if anyone has looked into it
yet.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian
  1999-08-20 21:09 ` Ryan Murray
@ 1999-08-20 22:41   ` Drew Smith
  1999-08-23 14:12   ` Brian Wolfe
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Drew Smith @ 1999-08-20 22:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ryan Murray; +Cc: linux-lvm


	Hiya Ryan,

Ryan Murray wrote:

> I haven't actually compiled the tools under debian myself.  Debian does
> not have /usr/include/linux matching up with the kernel release, so any
> patches you might do to the kernel won't show up.

	Zuh?  Lost me here - I patch the kernel all the time.  LVM is actually
looking for lvm.h in /usr/src/linux/include/linux - and that's placed
there properly by the Alan Cox patch... compiling the tools, it just
wasn't finding the include directory happily.  I symlinked it in, and it
compiled fine.
 
> >       My problems begin here - it worked happily!  I shared it out to the
> > others via Samba, and they happily drug and dropped mass quantities of
> > .MP3's to it.  After a while, it crashed.
> 
> Was there anything recorded by syslog?  How did it crash?

	*sigh* - I wish.  No errors whatsoever, and the roommate rebooted it
before I had a chance to throw a graphics head on it and see what was
onscreen at the time.  It has a monitor now, specifically for that
reason.
 
> >       I'm sort of hypothesizing that it crashed as it hit the end of the
> > first drive - I'm only doing a linear setup, no stripes.  Roughly at the
> 
> I've got about 40GB of mix'n'match drives -- 12GB IDE's, .5GB SCSIs,
> full height, half height, a real mix of everything, so striping wouldn't
> help that much.  If you are using ext2fs on the lv, you'll hit all over
> the drives, so there won't be a "just before the second drive".  ext2fs
> will space out the files all over the lv.

	Ah - this is news to me - I really don't know all that much about the
way filesystems work.  This is why I'm jumping on the Linux LVM wagon
early. :)
 
> > time that it WOULD have hit 9G, it locked the system solid, requiring a
> > power-down.  Unfortunately, the machine doesn't have a head most of the
> > time, so no errors were noted.
> 
> Do you have magic sys-rq compiled in?  This could be useful...

	Nopers, and I'm afraid I've never actually used it - I know what a
kernel oops is, and that you can trace it - but not how. :)

 
> >       Since then, I've compiled 2.2.11-ac3, and have been working on getting
> > the same setup running again - with one exception.  I tried to put a
> 
> I've been using 2.2.10-ac12 and 2.2.11-ac1, althought -ac1 has known TCP
> problems...

	Hurm, the problems were with 2.2.10-ac12 - hopefully 2.2.11-ac3 will be
better.

> > seems I don't own a single 50-pin ribbon cable that is clean enough to
> > avoid timeouts.  At 2am, I powered it off and left it for my bed - had
> 
> Yes, that can be a problem.  It's also a problem when one drive dies and
> you aren't running raid on it at any level.  When using older full
> height SCSI drives in stripe/linear, if you don't add raid to it
> somewhere, you are only as strong as the weakest drive.  I dunno if I'd
> trust heavily used drives nearing the end of their life...

	*nod*, that's an issue - however, all of the data is static, and will
be on high-speed tape by the end of the week (unless I can find some
optical media for my unpopulated Artecon library...) - so if a drive
dies, that's about 1 hour's work, then another 8 hours unattended. 
Almost worth the risk rather than losing space to parity.  Your
thoughts?  Ideas on maximizing security while maintaining speed and
capacity?

> > tonight. Has anyone had any problems with stability under Debian, and/or
> > tracked down what those might stem from?  I'm running the machine now
> 
> I'm running debian potato on one machine, but it isn't running LVM.  The
> LVM system is a Slackware 4.0 system, still on libc5.  Maybe it is libc?
>  If you are running the latest from potato (2.1.x) it may not be
> compatible with the tools as is, I dunno if anyone has looked into it
> yet.

	Hurm, never even considered LibC.  I'll look into it tonight at home -
can't remember the version, and the machine's down.  Woo!  Crash-test
weekend!

	Cheers,
	- Drew.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian
  1999-08-20 21:09 ` Ryan Murray
  1999-08-20 22:41   ` Drew Smith
@ 1999-08-23 14:12   ` Brian Wolfe
  1999-08-24  7:44     ` Thomas Gebhardt
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Brian Wolfe @ 1999-08-23 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6335 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 02:09:59PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 12:15:55PM -0600, Drew Smith wrote:
> > 	So I did manage to get 0.7 to compile happily under Debian - using
> > 2.2.10-ac12.  This was difficult, and I've discovered why - either
> > Debian or LVM isn't properly referencing where the includes are stored. 
> > My fix was:
> 
> I haven't actually compiled the tools under debian myself.  Debian does
> not have /usr/include/linux matching up with the kernel release, so any
> patches you might do to the kernel won't show up.
> 

	Actualy you are supposed to symlink /usr/include/linux to /usr/src/linux/include/linux. I'm told by the head honchos at Debian that this method has been semi-officialy endorsed as the proper method instead of installing the .h files in /usr/include/linux. If you do it this way you find all the patches include files as well.

> > 	My problems begin here - it worked happily!  I shared it out to the
> > others via Samba, and they happily drug and dropped mass quantities of
> > .MP3's to it.  After a while, it crashed.
> 
> Was there anything recorded by syslog?  How did it crash?
> 
> > 	I'm sort of hypothesizing that it crashed as it hit the end of the
> > first drive - I'm only doing a linear setup, no stripes.  Roughly at the
> 
> I've got about 40GB of mix'n'match drives -- 12GB IDE's, .5GB SCSIs,
> full height, half height, a real mix of everything, so striping wouldn't
> help that much.  If you are using ext2fs on the lv, you'll hit all over
> the drives, so there won't be a "just before the second drive".  ext2fs
> will space out the files all over the lv.
> 
> > time that it WOULD have hit 9G, it locked the system solid, requiring a
> > power-down.  Unfortunately, the machine doesn't have a head most of the
> > time, so no errors were noted.
> 
> Do you have magic sys-rq compiled in?  This could be useful...
> 
> > 	Since then, I've compiled 2.2.11-ac3, and have been working on getting
> > the same setup running again - with one exception.  I tried to put a
> 
> I've been using 2.2.10-ac12 and 2.2.11-ac1, althought -ac1 has known TCP
> problems...
>


Running vanilla 2.2.10+lvm-0.7 here on a production server that gets pounded every night round 2am. :) It's serving as a primary mirror for Debian http and ftp distribution. I get occasional scsi errors out of my ancient aha2940-pci and lvm handles these very nicely so far. 
 
> > seems I don't own a single 50-pin ribbon cable that is clean enough to
> > avoid timeouts.  At 2am, I powered it off and left it for my bed - had
> 
> Yes, that can be a problem.  It's also a problem when one drive dies and
> you aren't running raid on it at any level.  When using older full
> height SCSI drives in stripe/linear, if you don't add raid to it
> somewhere, you are only as strong as the weakest drive.  I dunno if I'd
> trust heavily used drives nearing the end of their life...
> 
> > tonight. Has anyone had any problems with stability under Debian, and/or
> > tracked down what those might stem from?  I'm running the machine now
> 
> I'm running debian potato on one machine, but it isn't running LVM.  The
> LVM system is a Slackware 4.0 system, still on libc5.  Maybe it is libc?
>  If you are running the latest from potato (2.1.x) it may not be
> compatible with the tools as is, I dunno if anyone has looked into it
> yet.

	As noted above, Debian Potato( 2.2 ) with vanilla 2.2.10+lvm-0.7. Dual pIII 450/512MB 9g,5x4.5g scsi.

yamato.terrabox.com:

  9:11am  up 10 days, 11:14,  2 users,  load average: 0.52, 0.33, 0.18

Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00 main.html
  Vendor: SEAGATE  Model: ST410800N        Rev: 0025
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 01 Lun: 00
  Vendor: SEAGATE  Model: ST15150N         Rev: 0017
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 02 Lun: 00
  Vendor: SEAGATE  Model: ST15150N         Rev: 1005
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi0 Channel: 00 Id: 03 Lun: 00
  Vendor: SEAGATE  Model: ST15150N         Rev: 0020
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 10 Lun: 00
  Vendor: MICROP   Model: 4345WS           Rev: x43h
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02
Host: scsi1 Channel: 00 Id: 11 Lun: 00
  Vendor: MICROP   Model: 4345WS           Rev: X502
  Type:   Direct-Access                    ANSI SCSI revision: 02

Linux yamato 2.2.10 #2 SMP Mon Aug 9 03:59:02 CDT 1999 i686 unknown

LVM version 0.7  by Heinz Mauelshagen  (12/07/1999)
lvm -- Driver successfully initialized
(scsi0) <Adaptec AHA-294X SCSI host adapter> found at PCI 17/0
(scsi0) Narrow Channel, SCSI ID=7, 16/255 SCBs
(scsi0) Downloading sequencer code... 406 instructions downloaded
(scsi1) <Adaptec AHA-294X Ultra SCSI host adapter> found at PCI 18/0
(scsi1) Wide Channel, SCSI ID=7, 16/255 SCBs
(scsi1) Downloading sequencer code... 413 instructions downloaded
scsi0 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x (EISA/VLB/PCI-Fast SCSI) 5.1.17/3.2.4
       <Adaptec AHA-294X SCSI host adapter>
scsi1 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x (EISA/VLB/PCI-Fast SCSI) 5.1.17/3.2.4
       <Adaptec AHA-294X Ultra SCSI host adapter>
scsi : 2 hosts.


	Here are the scsi errros i've logged since i booted 10 days ago. Everything seems to be ok and functional...

SCSI disk error : host 0 channel 0 id 2 lun 0 return code = 2
scsidisk I/O error: dev 08:21, sector 5976322
(scsi0:0:2:0) Performing Domain validation.
(scsi0:0:2:0) Successfully completed Domain validation.
nmap uses obsolete (PF_INET,SOCK_PACKET)
SCSI disk error : host 0 channel 0 id 2 lun 0 return code = 2
scsidisk I/O error: dev 08:21, sector 8287666
(scsi0:0:2:0) Performing Domain validation.
(scsi0:0:2:0) Successfully completed Domain validation.
SCSI disk error : host 0 channel 0 id 2 lun 0 return code = 2
scsidisk I/O error: dev 08:21, sector 5478418
(scsi0:0:2:0) Performing Domain validation.
(scsi0:0:2:0) reducing SCSI transfer speed due to Domain validation failure.
(scsi0:0:2:0) Performing Domain validation.
(scsi0:0:2:0) Successfully completed Domain validation.




[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 290 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian
  1999-08-23 14:12   ` Brian Wolfe
@ 1999-08-24  7:44     ` Thomas Gebhardt
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Gebhardt @ 1999-08-24  7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

Hi,

> > I haven't actually compiled the tools under debian myself.  Debian does
> > not have /usr/include/linux matching up with the kernel release, so any
> > patches you might do to the kernel won't show up.
> >=20
> 
> 	Actualy you are supposed to symlink /usr/include/linux to /usr/src/linux/i=
> nclude/linux. I'm told by the head honchos at Debian that this method has b=
> een semi-officialy endorsed as the proper method instead of installing the =
> .h files in /usr/include/linux. If you do it this way you find all the patc=
> hes include files as well.

here is the rationale of the /usr/include/linux vs.
/usr/src/linux/include/linux issue.
(sorry, I don't have any reference to this, so I have to include
 all the text here)
Basically the kernel headers match the kernel. The /usr/include headers
match the program development tools. This allows to separate
kernel and libc development.

Here is the story:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 The headers were included in libc5-dev after a rash of very
 buggy alpha kernel releases (1.3.7* or something like that) that
 proceeded to break compilations, etc.  Kernel versions are changed
 far more rapidly than libc is, and there are higer chances that
 people install a custom kernel than they install custom libc.

	libc6 includes it's own version of /usr/include/linux and
 friends form the beginning (that is, this is no longer a Debian only
 feature, the upstream version has moved to this scheme as well).

>> "Linus" == Linus Torvalds said on Wed, 22 Jan 1997:

Linus> The kernel headers used to make sense exporting to user space,
Linus> but the user space thing has grown so much that it's really not
Linus> practical any more. The problem with Debian is just that they
Linus> are different, not that they are doing anything wrong. That
Linus> leads to differences between the distributions, and that in
Linus> turn obviously can result in subtle problems.

Linus> As of glibc, the kernel headers will really be _kernel_
Linus> headers, and user level includes are user level
Linus> includes. Matthias Ulrich did that partly because I've asked
Linus> him to, but mainly just because it is no longer possible to try
Linus> to synchronize the libc and the kernel the way it used to
Linus> be. The symlinks have been a bad idea for at least a year now,
Linus> and the problem is just how to get rid of them
Linus> gracefully. Personally, I'm counting on glibc, which we are
Linus> already using on alpha.

Linus> Just to give you some idea of exactly why the includes really
Linus> can't be handled by simple symlinks: the main problem is
Linus> version skew. Lots of people want to upgrade their library
Linus> without affecting the kernel, and probably even more people
Linus> want to be able to upgrade their kernel without affecting their
Linus> compilation environment. Right now doing that has been
Linus> extremely fragile.

Linus> Just to give _one_ example of why the symlinks are bad: NR_OPEN
Linus> and "fd_set". I have had no end of problems making NR_OPEN
Linus> larger in the kernel, exactly _because_ of the damn
Linus> sym-links. If I just make NR_OPEN larger (the right thing to
Linus> do), the problem is that people with old libraries will now
Linus> compile against a header file that doesn't match the library
Linus> any more. And when the library internally uses another NR_OPEN
Linus> than the new program does, "interesting" things happen.

Linus> In contrast, with separate header files, this doesn't make any
Linus> difference.  If I change NR_OPEN in the kernel, the compilation
Linus> environment won't notice UNTIL the library and associated
Linus> header files are changed: thus the user will contine to compile
Linus> with the old values, but because we'll still be binary
Linus> compatible, the worst thing that happens is that new programs
Linus> won't take advantage of new features unless the developer has
Linus> upgraded his library. Compare that to breaking subtly.

Linus> NR_OPEN is just _one_ example, and actually it's one of the
Linus> easier ones to handle (because the only thing that really makes
Linus> much of a difference when it comes to NR_OPEN is the fd_set
Linus> size - but it certainly bit some people). Another major problem
Linus> is name-space pollution: the POSIX/ANSI/XOpen rules are not
Linus> only complex, but they are actually contradictory too. And the
Linus> kernel header files really can't reasonably support all of the
Linus> intricacies very cleanly.

Linus> One specific example of why we want separate header files for
Linus> libraries and kernel is offered by glibc: Matthias wanted to
Linus> have a "sigset_t" that will suffice for the future when the
Linus> POSIX.1b realtime signals are implemented. But at the same time
Linus> he obviously wants to be able to support programmin on
Linus> Linux-2.0 and the current 2.1 that do not have that support.

Linus> The _only_ reasonably clean way to handle these kinds of
Linus> problems is to have separate header files: user programs see a
Linus> larger sigset_t, and then the library interaction with the
Linus> kernel doesn't necessarily use all of the bits, for
Linus> example. Then later, when the kernel support is actually there,
Linus> it's just a matter of getting a new shared library, and voila,
Linus> all the realtime signals work.

Linus> The symlink approach simply wouldn't work for the above: that
Linus> would have required everybody who uses the library to have a
Linus> recent enough kernel that whatever magic all the above entails
Linus> would be available in the kernel header files. But not only
Linus> don't I want to pollute the kernel header files with user level
Linus> decisions, it's actually possible that somebody wants to run
Linus> glibc on a 1.2.x kernel, for example. We _definitely_ do not
Linus> want him to get a 32-bit sigset_t just because he is happy with
Linus> an old kernel.

Linus> Anyway, this email got longer than intended, but I just wanted
Linus> to make clear that the symlinks will eventually be going away
Linus> even in non-Debian distributions. Debian just happened to do it
Linus> first - probably because Debian seems to be more interested in
Linus> technical reasons than any old traditions. And technically, the
Linus> symlinks really aren't very good.

Linus> The _only_ reason for the symlinks is to immediately give
Linus> access to new features in the kernel when those happen. New
Linus> ioctl numbers etc etc. That was an overriding concern early on:
Linus> the kernel interfaces expanded so rapidly even in "normal"
Linus> areas that having the synchronization that symlinks offered was
Linus> a good thing.

Linus> However, the kernel interfaces aren't really supposed to change
Linus> all that quickly any more, and more importantly: the technical
Linus> users know how to fix things any way they want, so if they want
Linus> a new ioctl number to show up they can actually edit the header
Linus> files themselves, for example. But having separation is good
Linus> for the non-technical user, because there are less surprises
Linus> and package dependencies.

Linus> Anyway, something like the patch that David suggested will
Linus> certainly go in, although I suspect I'll wait for it to become
Linus> "standard" and the glibc first real release to take place.


        Add to that the fact that few programs really need the more
 volatile elements of the header files (that is, things that really
 change from kernel version to kernel version), [before you reject
 this, consider: programs compiled on one kernel version usually work
 on other kernels].

        So, it makes sense that a set of headers be provided from a
 known good kernel version, and that is sufficient for compiling most
 programs, (it also makes the compile time environments for programs
 on debian machines a well known one, easing the process of dealing
 with problem reports), the few programs that really depend on cutting
 edge kernel data structures may just use -I/usr/src/linux/include
 (provided that kernel-headers or kernel-source exists on the system).

        Most programs, even if they include <linux/something.h>, do
 not really depend on the version of the kernel, as long as the kernel
 versions are not too far off, they will work. And the headers
 provided in libc5-dev (and libc6-dev) are just that. 

        libc5-dev is uploaded frequently enough that it never lags too
 far behind the latest released kernel. libc6 has totally disconnected
 the included headers from kernel headers.

        There are two different capabilities which are the issue, and
 the kernel-packages and libc{5,6}-dev address different ones:

 a) The kernel packages try tp provide a stable, well behaved kernel
    and modules, and may be upgraded whenever there are significant
    advances in those directions (bug fixes, more/better module
    support, etc).  These, however, may not have include files that
    are non-broken as far as non-kernel programs are concerned, and
    the quality of the development/compilation environment is not the
    kernel packages priority (Also, please note that the kernel
    packages are tied together, so kernel-source, headers, and image
    are produced in sync)

 b) Quality of the development/compilation environment is the priority
    of libc{5,6}-dev package, and it tries to ensure that the headers it
    provides would be stable and not break non-kernel programs. This
    assertion may fail for alpha kernels, which may otherwise be
    perfectly stable, hence the need for a different set of known-good
    kernel include files.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:19     ` Tom Brown
  2002-01-18  5:57     ` Markus Dobel
@ 2002-01-18  8:00     ` Petro
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Petro @ 2002-01-18  8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:58:03AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
> > > 
> > > Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
> > > site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?
> > 
> > The text on http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm_download.htm is not up
> > to date. There's 1.0.1 final already on the FTP server. Just follow the
> > link to 1.0.1rc4.
> > 
> > Although I did not have any problems with the 1.0.1rc4(ish) code in
> > stock kernel 2.4.17, I'd recommend using 1.0.1. 
> > 
> > Regards, Markus
> > 
> > -- 
> > Free the Fluffy Bunny.
> > 
> 
> There's a thing I don't understand : is the lvm_1.0.1rc4 patch still in the 
> 2.4.17 kernel or do I have to patch my 2.4.17 kernel to use lvm and lvm 
> commands ?

    Yes, it's still in the kernel.

    You're better off patching to 1.0.1 release, and if you want to do
    snaps, the VFS lock patch. 

> I thought that using a 2.4.17 kernel permitted to have lvm fonctionalities and 
> not to be obliged to patch the kernel.

    You don't have to. 

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:31 [linux-lvm] lvm " Pierrick PONS
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2002-01-18  5:05 ` Adrian Phillips
@ 2002-01-18  7:59 ` Petro
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Petro @ 2002-01-18  7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:30:35AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
> Hello all,
> I'd like to use lvm. I got a 2.4.17 kernel and I'm under Debian.

    Works great, lasts a long time. 

> Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm commands (lvcreate, 
> vgcreate, ... ) ?

    Yes. 

> Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
> site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?

    If that's the lastest you found (hint rc4 is pre 1.0.1) then you're
    not looking hard enough. 

    Patch the kernel to 1.0.1 release and rebuild it. 

-- 
Share and Enjoy. 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:57     ` Markus Dobel
@ 2002-01-18  7:06       ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Heinz J . Mauelshagen @ 2002-01-18  7:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:56:39PM +0100, Markus Dobel wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:58:03AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
> >
> > There's a thing I don't understand : is the lvm_1.0.1rc4 patch still in the 
> > 2.4.17 kernel or do I have to patch my 2.4.17 kernel to use lvm and lvm 
> > commands ?
> 
> There is some kind of LVM 1.0.1rc4 (therefore called 1.0.1rc4(ish)) in
> kernel 2.4.17.
> 
> > I thought that using a 2.4.17 kernel permitted to have lvm fonctionalities and 
> > not to be obliged to patch the kernel.
> 
> No, you don't *need* to patch the kernel to have LVM. It's in the
> kernel, just in an older version.

In case you want to go with LVM 1.0.1 (which is the actual release you
can get from www.sistina.com) and want to have the recent driver fixes
in the kernel as well, you still need to patch it following the instructions
in INSTALL and PATCHES/README.
1.0.1 for eg. addresses devfs and unresolved symbol issues.

> 
> Regards, Markus
> 
> -- 
> Free the Fluffy Bunny.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html

Regards,
Heinz    -- The LVM Guy --

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Heinz Mauelshagen                                 Sistina Software Inc.
Senior Consultant/Developer                       Am Sonnenhang 11
                                                  56242 Marienrachdorf
                                                  Germany
Mauelshagen@Sistina.com                           +49 2626 141200
                                                       FAX 924446
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:19     ` Tom Brown
@ 2002-01-18  5:57     ` Markus Dobel
  2002-01-18  7:06       ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
  2002-01-18  8:00     ` Petro
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Markus Dobel @ 2002-01-18  5:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:58:03AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
>
> There's a thing I don't understand : is the lvm_1.0.1rc4 patch still in the 
> 2.4.17 kernel or do I have to patch my 2.4.17 kernel to use lvm and lvm 
> commands ?

There is some kind of LVM 1.0.1rc4 (therefore called 1.0.1rc4(ish)) in
kernel 2.4.17.

> I thought that using a 2.4.17 kernel permitted to have lvm fonctionalities and 
> not to be obliged to patch the kernel.

No, you don't *need* to patch the kernel to have LVM. It's in the
kernel, just in an older version.

Regards, Markus

-- 
Free the Fluffy Bunny.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:47       ` Wichert Akkerman
@ 2002-01-18  5:55         ` Adrian Phillips
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Phillips @ 2002-01-18  5:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

>>>>> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <wichert@cistron.nl> writes:

    Wichert> Previously Chris Danis wrote:
    >> These packages are present only in the 'unstable' distribution
    >> of Debian, or sid. They are not in stable nor are they in
    >> testing.

    Wichert> Hmm, indeed:

    Wichert> lvm-common | 1.3 | unstable | mips, mipsel, powerpc, sh,
    Wichert> sparc lvm-common | 1.4 | unstable | source, alpha, arm,
    Wichert> hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, s390 lvm10 | 1.0-1 | unstable |
    Wichert> sh lvm10 | 1.0.1release-1 | unstable | source, alpha,
    Wichert> arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390,
    Wichert> sparc

    Wichert> However you can manually grab the package for unstable
    Wichert> and install it on a testing system without any problems.

Yes, sorry about that Pierrick. I wasn't sure whether they were in
testing or unstable. I have done exactly what Wichert said (well,
actually I have setup a little pool with newer, than testing, packages
that cfengine should use for installation on our servers),

Sincerely,

Adrian Phillps

-- 
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now?  [OK]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:38     ` Adrian Phillips
@ 2002-01-18  5:53       ` Pierrick PONS
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Pierrick PONS @ 2002-01-18  5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

> >>>>> "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS <ppons@cvf.fr> writes:
> 
>     Pierrick> Oh I'm really interested in getting these packages, but
>     Pierrick> could you give us the source to add in the source.list
>     Pierrick> which permits obtaining these packages ?
> 
> deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian/ woody main non-free contrib
> deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free
> 
> [Adjust .se. to country of choice]
> 
> BUT if you're running potato then you'll end up with a new libc6 as a
> minimum so be careful.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adrian Phillips
> 
> -- 
> Your mouse has moved.
> Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
> Reboot now?  [OK]
> 

I have found these packages, but they are on unstable (sid). They are not 
woody packages at all.
I'm sorry I was a little off-topic.

I do have installed them, so I'm going to test lvm.

Thank you all for this help.



-- 
Pierrick PONS
CVF Bordeaux
mail: ppons@cvf.fr

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:42     ` Chris Danis
@ 2002-01-18  5:47       ` Wichert Akkerman
  2002-01-18  5:55         ` Adrian Phillips
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Wichert Akkerman @ 2002-01-18  5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

Previously Chris Danis wrote:
> These packages are present only in the 'unstable' distribution of Debian, 
> or sid. They are not in stable nor are they in testing.

Hmm, indeed:

lvm-common |        1.3 |      unstable | mips, mipsel, powerpc, sh, sparc
lvm-common |        1.4 |      unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, s390
     lvm10 |      1.0-1 |      unstable | sh
     lvm10 | 1.0.1release-1 |      unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc

However you can manually grab the package for unstable and install it
on a testing system without any problems.

Wichert.

-- 
  _________________________________________________________________
 /wichert@wiggy.net         This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org            http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0  2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:25   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:38     ` Adrian Phillips
@ 2002-01-18  5:42     ` Chris Danis
  2002-01-18  5:47       ` Wichert Akkerman
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Chris Danis @ 2002-01-18  5:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS wrote:

  +> > >>>> "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS <ppons@cvf.fr> writes:

  Pierrick> Oh I'm really interested in getting these packages, but could
  Pierrick> you give us the source to add in the source.list which permits
  Pierrick> obtaining these packages ?

These packages are present only in the 'unstable' distribution of Debian, 
or sid. They are not in stable nor are they in testing.

thanks,

-chris
-- 

(I subscribe to all lists that I post to;
please do not Cc me on list reply)
Chris Danis
screechco@home.com / danish@debian.org
Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:25   ` Pierrick PONS
@ 2002-01-18  5:38     ` Adrian Phillips
  2002-01-18  5:53       ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:42     ` Chris Danis
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Phillips @ 2002-01-18  5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

>>>>> "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS <ppons@cvf.fr> writes:

    Pierrick> Oh I'm really interested in getting these packages, but
    Pierrick> could you give us the source to add in the source.list
    Pierrick> which permits obtaining these packages ?

deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian/ woody main non-free contrib
deb http://ftp.se.debian.org/debian-non-US woody/non-US main contrib non-free

[Adjust .se. to country of choice]

BUT if you're running potato then you'll end up with a new libc6 as a
minimum so be careful.

Sincerely,

Adrian Phillips

-- 
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now?  [OK]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  5:05 ` Adrian Phillips
@ 2002-01-18  5:25   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:38     ` Adrian Phillips
  2002-01-18  5:42     ` Chris Danis
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Pierrick PONS @ 2002-01-18  5:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

> >>>>> "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS <ppons@cvf.fr> writes:
> 
>     Pierrick> Hello all, I'd like to use lvm. I got a 2.4.17 kernel
>     Pierrick> and I'm under Debian.
> 
>     Pierrick> Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm
>     Pierrick> commands (lvcreate, vgcreate, ... ) ?
> 
> >From woody :-
> 
> ii  lvm-common             1.3                    The Logical Volume Manager for Linux (common files)
> ii  lvm10                  1.0.1-1                The Logical Volume Manager for Linux
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adrian Phillips
> 
> -- 
> Your mouse has moved.
> Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
> Reboot now?  [OK]
> 

Oh I'm really interested in getting these packages, but could you give us the 
source to add in the source.list which permits obtaining these packages ?

Thinks a lot.


Pierrick

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
@ 2002-01-18  5:19     ` Tom Brown
  2002-01-18  5:57     ` Markus Dobel
  2002-01-18  8:00     ` Petro
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Tom Brown @ 2002-01-18  5:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:58:03AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
> There's a thing I don't understand : is the lvm_1.0.1rc4 patch still in the 
> 2.4.17 kernel or do I have to patch my 2.4.17 kernel to use lvm and lvm 
> commands ?
> 
> I thought that using a 2.4.17 kernel permitted to have lvm fonctionalities and 
> not to be obliged to patch the kernel.

I downloaded the kernel source with
apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.16

Then downloaded the lvm source and followed the instructions in 
README and INSTALL to patch the kernel and build and install the lvm tools.

Then I followed the instructions at
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=debian+kernel+source
to build and install the patched kernel the debian way.

Seemed to work without a major problem.


-- 
mailto:thecap@usa.net
http://www.ece.utexas.edu/~thecap/
28 70 20 71 2C 65 29 61 9C B1 36 3D D4 69 CE 62 4A 22 8B 0E DC 3E

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:31 [linux-lvm] lvm " Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
  2002-01-18  5:00 ` christian e
@ 2002-01-18  5:05 ` Adrian Phillips
  2002-01-18  5:25   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  7:59 ` Petro
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Phillips @ 2002-01-18  5:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

>>>>> "Pierrick" == Pierrick PONS <ppons@cvf.fr> writes:

    Pierrick> Hello all, I'd like to use lvm. I got a 2.4.17 kernel
    Pierrick> and I'm under Debian.

    Pierrick> Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm
    Pierrick> commands (lvcreate, vgcreate, ... ) ?

From woody :-

ii  lvm-common             1.3                    The Logical Volume Manager for Linux (common files)
ii  lvm10                  1.0.1-1                The Logical Volume Manager for Linux

Sincerely,

Adrian Phillips

-- 
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now?  [OK]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:31 [linux-lvm] lvm " Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
@ 2002-01-18  5:00 ` christian e
  2002-01-18  5:05 ` Adrian Phillips
  2002-01-18  7:59 ` Petro
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: christian e @ 2002-01-18  5:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

Pierrick PONS wrote:

> Hello all,
> 
> I'd like to use lvm. I got a 2.4.17 kernel and I'm under Debian.
> 
> Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm commands (lvcreate, 
> vgcreate, ... ) ?
> 
> Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
> site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?


I'm running LVM 1.0.1 on our main Debian machine.I installed it from 
source.There's not any packages as far as I know and if there were I'd 
still install from source.It needs to be up-to-date.

best regards

Christian

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
@ 2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:19     ` Tom Brown
                       ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Pierrick PONS @ 2002-01-18  4:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

> > 
> > Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
> > site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?
> 
> The text on http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm_download.htm is not up
> to date. There's 1.0.1 final already on the FTP server. Just follow the
> link to 1.0.1rc4.
> 
> Although I did not have any problems with the 1.0.1rc4(ish) code in
> stock kernel 2.4.17, I'd recommend using 1.0.1. 
> 
> Regards, Markus
> 
> -- 
> Free the Fluffy Bunny.
> 

There's a thing I don't understand : is the lvm_1.0.1rc4 patch still in the 
2.4.17 kernel or do I have to patch my 2.4.17 kernel to use lvm and lvm 
commands ?

I thought that using a 2.4.17 kernel permitted to have lvm fonctionalities and 
not to be obliged to patch the kernel.

Sorry for my ignorance.


Pierrick

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* Re: [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
  2002-01-18  4:31 [linux-lvm] lvm " Pierrick PONS
@ 2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
  2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  5:00 ` christian e
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Markus Dobel @ 2002-01-18  4:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 11:30:35AM +0100, Pierrick PONS wrote:
>
> Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm commands (lvcreate, 
> vgcreate, ... ) ?

Don't know.

> 
> Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
> site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?

The text on http://www.sistina.com/products_lvm_download.htm is not up
to date. There's 1.0.1 final already on the FTP server. Just follow the
link to 1.0.1rc4.

Although I did not have any problems with the 1.0.1rc4(ish) code in
stock kernel 2.4.17, I'd recommend using 1.0.1. 

Regards, Markus

-- 
Free the Fluffy Bunny.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

* [linux-lvm] lvm and Debian
@ 2002-01-18  4:31 Pierrick PONS
  2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Pierrick PONS @ 2002-01-18  4:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-lvm

Hello all,

I'd like to use lvm. I got a 2.4.17 kernel and I'm under Debian.

Do you know if some debian packages do exist to use lvm commands (lvcreate, 
vgcreate, ... ) ?

Am I obliged to use lvm_1.0.1-rc4 (that's the latest I found on Sistina web 
site ) if I'm under a 2.4.17 kernel ?

Thanks a lot.



Pierrick

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2002-01-18  8:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-08-20 18:15 [linux-lvm] LVM and Debian Drew Smith
1999-08-20 21:09 ` Ryan Murray
1999-08-20 22:41   ` Drew Smith
1999-08-23 14:12   ` Brian Wolfe
1999-08-24  7:44     ` Thomas Gebhardt
2002-01-18  4:31 [linux-lvm] lvm " Pierrick PONS
2002-01-18  4:45 ` Markus Dobel
2002-01-18  4:59   ` Pierrick PONS
2002-01-18  5:19     ` Tom Brown
2002-01-18  5:57     ` Markus Dobel
2002-01-18  7:06       ` Heinz J . Mauelshagen
2002-01-18  8:00     ` Petro
2002-01-18  5:00 ` christian e
2002-01-18  5:05 ` Adrian Phillips
2002-01-18  5:25   ` Pierrick PONS
2002-01-18  5:38     ` Adrian Phillips
2002-01-18  5:53       ` Pierrick PONS
2002-01-18  5:42     ` Chris Danis
2002-01-18  5:47       ` Wichert Akkerman
2002-01-18  5:55         ` Adrian Phillips
2002-01-18  7:59 ` Petro

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).