| To: | James Pearson <james-p@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS + software raid + 4k stacks = BOOM? |
| From: | Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 13 Jun 2006 23:11:54 -0500 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <448A98E8.9040109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <448A98E8.9040109@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060516) |
James Pearson wrote: Nathan Scott wrote:On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:41:02PM +0200, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:I was wondering if the above config will work or if it's still considered "if it breaks you get to keep the broken stack" ? ...We are unaware of any remaining XFS issues with 4K stacks... so, let us know if anything does go BOOM.Do you know at which point these remaining issues got resolved? - for example, could there be any potential stack problems using RHEL4 (U3) with the XFS module from <ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/testing/RHEL4/> ? There were more stack reductions after that. Which is -not- to say that you -will- have problems with the above... all depends on what you're doing. But Nathan did more stack work after I put that rpm out. -Eric |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: error 990, Justin Piszcz |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: error 990, Norman Krebs |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS + software raid + 4k stacks = BOOM?, KELEMEN Peter |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS + software raid + 4k stacks = BOOM?, James Pearson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |