From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: bug#33676: GuixSD on eoma68-a20? Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 16:08:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20181216150811.GA8664__12149.9211214998$1544972826$gmane$org@jurong> References: <68f9fc17-94f5-dcc2-f54d-61d6e2bf384d@riseup.net> <20181208181214.2308472a@scratchpost.org> <20181209215126.GA10968@jurong> <20181210113014.0e4e76eb@scratchpost.org> <20181210211224.GA7317@jurong> <20181214215026.66ac1df2@scratchpost.org> <20181215102906.GA4621@jurong> <87lg4qa9vu.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45497) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gYY2T-0002sk-VK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:09:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gYY2Q-0004gD-Qd for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:09:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46222) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gYY2Q-0004g7-Mg for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:09:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gYY2Q-0005Yd-Eh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Dec 2018 10:09:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lg4qa9vu.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, 33676@debbugs.gnu.org On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 02:04:58PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > >> See also https://blog.merovius.de/2013/10/20/ext4-mysterious-no-space-left-on.html > > It was, and I disabled it. Hopefully this does not break anything... > Why did you disable it? Because we get exactly these spurious ENOSPC mentioned in the blog post on bayfront when the disk is only one third full. Now I am happy to try out any other combination of flags that solves the problem. So should I add dir_index again (is this possible live?), and then add large_dir? Andreas