Krzysztof Błaszkowski wrote:
> On Monday 10 May 2010 16:39, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Krzysztof Błaszkowski wrote:
>>> We stick with 188.8.131.52 which seems to be good for us. We do not change
>>> kernels easily, as soon as higher revision arrives because it doesn't
>>> make sense from stability point of view. We have seen too many times
>>> regression bugs so if we are confident with some revision then there is
>>> no point to change this.
>> It was just a testing suggestion, but I already tested upstream and the
>> problem persists, now just need to find the time to dig into it.
> I see and I am glad you confirmed this. Do you think that fallocate called
> many times with fixed size and increasing offset will work better than one
> time call with huge size @ 0 offset ?
I'd expect that to work; it's certainly worth a test, and please send your
results back to the list ;)