[svlug] Redhat 6.2 formatting HD took over 3 hours!!!
bj at netaxs.com
Fri Jun 9 01:01:39 PDT 2000
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Rick Moen wrote:
>Irrelevant to my objection. It went like this:
<snip of quotations>
>J.C. was purporting to respond to my quoted statement to Hart. But,
>as such, it was a non-sequitur. Which is what I said.
You said that it was "Irrelevant to the preceding discussion." In a
thread, I take "the preceding discussion" to mean the thread, the
subject of which is the topic of conversation.
Vincent> It took over *3 hours* to format and partition and
Vincent> stuff, and not a single "progress" meter or anything. Hell,
Vincent> it didn't even tell me it was working on different partitions
Vincent> -- it just said, "preparing / filesystem" or some stupid message the
Vincent> whole time.
Vincent> Now, I love RedHat's package over all the other's I've seen/tried, but
Vincent> this is just rediculous that it should take that long to format and
Vincent> doesn't even give an indication of time remaining or elapsed or anything.
Zawodny> I wish the installer had said,
Zawodny> "this could take half the day on big drives..."
Then you said:
Moen> Nonetheless, you pretty much always need to do it on IDE. On
Moen> SCSI, there's already a "hotfix" provision at the hardware level.
Zawodny> Yeah, I know. I just wished the installed had some simple logic in it
Zawodny> that says:
Zawodny> if (drive_is_big)
Hart> but I have raised the issue of giving users
Hart> feedback (a warning when they enable the option and some feedback
Hart> during the check) with our install engineering team.
You responded, quoting the part that I omitted above:
Moen> begin hartr at redhat.com quotation:
Moen> > 2) You enabled bad block checking when you installed. This most
Moen> > definitely does take a very long time. There is nothing we can do
Moen> > about the time it takes....
Moen> That would _not_ be Red Hat Software, Inc. but rather Ted T'so, who
Moen> writes the ext2 utilities, yes? No, there's not a lot he could do, but
Moen> there's something Daevid could do: Use SCSI.
Then JC Lawrence replied, quoting the first 1.5 lines of your above
response, and adding a "Yes, but..." response, getting back to what had
been the topic originally:
Lawrence> There is little preventing RH's installer from observing
Lawrence> just before they fork mke3fs, "large partition size plus block
Lawrence> checking," and thus put up an alert before forking mke2fs.
Lawrence> Moen> > No, there's not a lot he could do...
Lawrence> Actually mke2fs does do screen IO during its block checking pass (it
Lawrence> lists and updates a displayed value of how many blocks it has
Lawrence> checked). Whether this value is visible during RH's install given
Lawrence> any possible piping/redirection/virtual_console use is another
Lawrence> matter, but is again, under RH's control.
He wasn't arguing that it would decrease mke2fs format and bad-block
check time on IDE a bit at all. He was merely implying that it would be
a nicety for the user. And then the thing that baked my noodle
Moen> Irrelevant to the preceding discussion. That would not affect
Moen> _the time it takes_ by iota. Please read more carefully.
>You then went on a long flight of fancy, tendentiously misrepresenting
>the preceding exchange, and rather ironically claiming _I_ needed to
>pay closer attention.
I fail to see how I have misrepresented 20 messages in the thread prior
to you post on Thu, 8 Jun 2000 11:21:46 -0700. If you feel that way,
then you are certainly entitled to your own opinion and your own view
about that, just don't expect me to be convinced. Just as I remain
unconvinced by your arguments.
>Thus: You are wasting my time. Please don't do that.
I fail to see how I or anyone else has forced you to reply. I refuse to
accept responsibility for your actions; specifically, the time you spent
of your own free will composing 2 replies of your own to two replies of
I can see where you're coming from. You were obviously referring to 4
of the immediately previous messages, while I was looking at 20. Thank
you for pointing out the messages to which you were referring,
specifically. However, I still assert that in the context of the thread
(which is the context that, in general, every remark on a mailing list
is made -- the context of a thread), the remarks were not "irrelevant",
though it would certainly appear that they are, based on the 4 messages
Let's drop this. It's becoming increasingly obvious that either one of
us can find quotes to support our individual contentions. If nothing
else, that should be a point on which we can both agree.
>Ever heard of .cshrc? | "Linux means never having to delete
That's a city in Bosnia. Right? | your love mail." -- Don Marti
(Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc | http://www.netaxs.com/~bj/
on the intuitiveness of commands.) | http://www.harrybrowne.org/
More information about the svlug