On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 12:55:28 +0200
"Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office@...> wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 21. August 2018 schrieb Nick Koretsky:
> > On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 09:20:43 +0200
> > "Dr. Nikolaus Klepp" <office@...> wrote:
> >   
> > > > 
> > > > Its tears so far Nik. There are so many differences just in the
> > > > ext4's used that one of them should be renamed, they will NOT cross
> > > > mount, ext4 disk to ext4 mount.    
> > > 
> > > Hi Gene!
> > > 
> > > When you cannot mount the ext4 partions from one another, then there
> > > is something very wrong. ext4 can be mounted as ext2 and that should
> > > alway work - at least, if the drives and filesystems are ok.
> > >   
> > 
> > No, you are wrong. There were options added to ext4 which made it
> > incompatible with older kernels. And a few years ago they made this
> > options default. Debian wheezy kernel (3.2) would not mount ext4
> > created in debian stretch. 
> > 
> >   
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Now that's a gotcha I did not know. How did it come that this was thought
> of beeing a good idea?
> 
> Nik
> 

Yep. Exactly my thought when i spent 3-hours with a server refusing to boot
after migration to a new hdd (i used a stretch flash to copy). Who the fuck
toughs it was a good idea?!! Why not call it ext5 or ext4a or whatever?!! 


-- 
  Nick Koretsky (nick.koretsky@...)