Re: Moving /usr stopped wireless network!

From: Paul Lutus (nospam_at_nosite.zzz)
Date: 10/07/03


Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 15:31:11 -0700

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

< snip >

> Aha! As far as I know he did an upgrade using a RH tool that has an
> off-by-one bug when counting scsi partitions, and that caused a buggy
> upgrade, which resulted in something not being right afterwards.

No, he moved /usr, because he had to, because it was on a full partition,
and this led to the failure. All the rest are details.

> So I disagree. I don't know the truth of the matter, but at the moment
> I disagree with you.

It's in the thread.

>
> As to whether your scenario is a proof, well no, it isn't.

The proof I refer to is that the OP suffered a failure directly from having
too many partitions. Either that or he is lying, and why go there? That is
hardly a productive position.

>
> Moving stuff from one partition to another does not break it,
> so your "bad module load" is NOT "BECAUSE" "he moved /usr from
> onepartition to another".

In this case, the move caused a system failure, and that in turn was caused
by overpartitioning.

>
> You must know that!
>
>> The problem WENT AWAY when the OP moved /usr back, THUS PROVING that this
>
> False. You know perfectly well that software does not care on which
> partition it is, only where it is mounted. So you see that your
> reasoning must be falsely based.

In this case, the move caused a system failure, and that in turn was caused
by overpartitioning.

>
> In detail, you claim that a bad module load resulted from his moving
> /usr from one partition to another. Yet in the above paragraph you
> claim that the "bad module load" is CURED by his moving "/usr back".

In this case, the move caused a system failure, and that in turn was caused
by overpartitioning.

> You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Does a partition move cause
> a bad module load or doesn't it?
>
> Anyway, your logic is thereby shown to be broken.

In this case, the move caused a system failure, and that in turn was caused
by overpartitioning.

>
>> was the ROOT PROBLEM, and AND PROVING that overpartitioning was the ROOT
>
> Tut tut. It "proves" the opposite. The fact that moving it back cured
> things proves that the move was not the problem. But we know that,
> don't we!

In this case, the move caused a system failure, and that in turn was caused
by overpartitioning.

>
>> CAUSE.
>
> I suspect that what your apoplexy prevents you saying is "the moving
> tool had a bug for one of those particular partitions".

Stop rationalizing, None of this would have happened if the OP did not have
too many partitions.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Moving /usr stopped wireless network!
    ... > Peter T. Breuer wrote: ... The problem was not created by overpartitioning ... I.e. the cure is to partition properly (over partition, ... Crashes are not caused by overpartitioning. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Moving /usr stopped wireless network!
    ... You cannot exceed the partition limit, any more than you can exceed the ... The RH program has a bug, ... it was caused by RH's buggy tool, ... > system failure is trivially traceable to overpartitioning. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Moving /usr stopped wireless network!
    ... > Peter T. Breuer wrote: ... five years, for example, and a 1GB /var partition. ... So his budget worked. ... No, not so, and "overpartitioning" does not cause crashes. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Moving /usr stopped wireless network!
    ... partition was full. ... was the ROOT PROBLEM, and AND PROVING that overpartitioning was the ROOT ... Now the OP has no easy solution to his PROBLEM CAUSED BY OVERPARTITIONING. ... And something one expects to see when the facts contradict ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Resizing Partitions
    ... scratch Partition Magic...I'm not trusting my partitions to them: ... > SYSTEM FAILURE wrote: ... >> main linux partition. ... >> Are there free tools? ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)