| To: | Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch |
| From: | Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 10 Nov 2001 09:11:24 +0600 |
| Cc: | Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.LNX.4.40.0111100952020.14588-100000@gusi.leathercollection.ph>; from jijo@leathercollection.ph on Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 09:54:04AM +0800 |
| References: | <20011109151218.A5600@bee.lk> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0111100952020.14588-100000@gusi.leathercollection.ph> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, Nov 10, 2001 at 09:54:04AM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001 at 15:12, Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
>
> > Is anybody using XFS with preemptive kernel patch? Since I don't have
> > any "non-production" machines to do a test, any feedback would be very
> > useful.
>
> So yes, it's great. But only if you'll be using the machine's console. For
> most other server functions the overall kernel throughput will suffer a
> bit and really won't be worth it.
How about using preemptive patch on a firewall, running tranparent proxy
(squid/iptables) and also a little bit of qos/fair queuing stuff (includes XFS
on software raid 1)?
Will try it today and send some feedback.
Regards,
Anuradha
--
Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.13)
Jones' Second Law:
The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone
to blame it on.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch, Federico Sevilla III |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch, Federico Sevilla III |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch, Federico Sevilla III |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS and preemptive kernel patch, Federico Sevilla III |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |