| To: | eric c <xcellula@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Is CVS stable? |
| From: | David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:21:20 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <eb736a810802200026g1b956abar922548d3e67a9682@mail.gmail.com> |
| References: | <eb736a810802200026g1b956abar922548d3e67a9682@mail.gmail.com> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.2.1i |
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 02:26:42AM -0600, eric c wrote: > Hello, > > I have recently seen some patches for slabcache related > xfs_inode/xfs_vnode_t/dentry_cache taking up alot of memory: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-12/msg00154.html > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-02/msg00138.html > > If I cvs on linux-2.6-xfs, is it stable for production or bleeding? Mostly stable, but it is our _development_ tree and that means it can be broken at any given time. And by "broken" I mean corrupt your filesystems and lose all your data. IOWs, use the CVS tree in production at your own risk. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [patch] detect and correct bad features2 superblock field, Christoph Hellwig |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] Don't change ctime in truncate is size does not change, Christoph Hellwig |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Is CVS stable?, Eric Sandeen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Re: kernel oops on debian, 2.6.18-5, large xfs volume, lxh |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |