Xfs fsck online dating res a pajzson online dating
### Revert uuid back to original # xfs_admin -U restore /dev/sda1 Clearing log and setting UUID writing all SBs new UUID = f6cffcf4-49bb-40ed-ad2c-eb754e576e76 ### All works fine now RESCUE mate:~ # grub-probe -d /dev/sda1 xfs The patch I've created just removes code where xfs_admin changes uuid and delegated uuid creation to
As I'm quite new to XFS so I can't tell if if is good or not.
Everything seemed to be working until rear had finished recovering my MATE 16.04 install and it said it would not boot because it hadn't installed a bootloader because there was no code for installing GRUB for Ubuntu 16.04 i386.
The main problem here is that rear incorrectly detected a 64 bit Ubuntu distro as being i386 but I'm surprised rear doesn't support installing GRUB for Ubuntu 16.04 i386 / 32 bit!
I was disappointed with MATE 16.04 so I'm going back to Arch.
I hope rear supports installing grub / doing a complete recovery under both 32 and 64 bit Arch? I've already installed Arch on the laptop I was testing rear / Ubuntu MATE with but I'm willing to give it another go if you think we can fix it, even if I don't want to use Ubuntu (MATE) 16.04 any more. I think you want me to restore my MATE recovery, manually fix grub to get it to boot and then run , right?
A small comparison on SLES11 SP3, Centos 7.2 and Ubuntu Mate 16.4 Will I need to install your version or can I run it (under Arch but with the same local.conf) without installation? All other files (including local.conf) can remain unchanged.
if you execute on your normally running MATE, it should return integer 32 or 64, which should definitively answer the question if you have 32-bit or 64-bit version of CPU.
Regarding your question about support, yes I'd say code for restoring 32-bit and 64-bit should be same and Rea R should not have any trouble restoring it. If the code is the same for restoring 32 and 64 bit (which I believe it should be.
I've never been a fan of boot partitions so I've always avoided them where possible.
I don't really know much about XFS myself - all I know is that it fscks much faster than ext3/4 and supports larger filesystems so thats why I use it, not that I really need the latter advantage.
Well, so far I've dealt mostly with 64-bit Linux version which identified with processor type string x86_64 (not x64).