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