| To: | Anthony Biacco <ABiacco@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: mount: Function not implemented? |
| From: | Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:57:25 -0700 |
| Cc: | Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <74918D8CA17F7C418753F01078F10B6BD08560@bill.corporate.quris.com> |
| References: | <74918D8CA17F7C418753F01078F10B6BD08560@bill.corporate.quris.com> |
| Sender: | linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 04:50:05PM -0600, Anthony Biacco wrote: > But it's a 64-bit system. with a crappy MMU :( that's by far my biggest bitch with x86-64 > How do people get oracle performing on enterprise class hardware, > with linux, with such a low page size? i really don't think you'll see much performance difference between 4k and 16k pages (on a cpu that does allow this) > Do you just have to say, the hell with it, and create a raw device? you can try that, but i don't think you'll see a significant performance difference using 4k blocks linux doesn't do IO in the size of the fs' blocksize, raw or otherwise --cw |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: mount: Function not implemented?, Net Llama! |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS installer for Fedora 1, Keith Owens |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: mount: Function not implemented?, Net Llama! |
| Next by Thread: | Re: mount: Function not implemented?, Steve Lord |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |