- 1. st CVS and make oldconfig (score: 1)
- Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:31:37 -0800
- Perhaps it's fairer to compare with ext3 then? Bert Hubert <ahu@xxxxxxx> just posted this to l-k: [...] Now, this gives an upper bound for 5.3s to delete a kernel tree when 'hot' in cache. I can't re
- /archives/xfs/2002-11/msg00090.html (10,188 bytes)
- 2. oldconfig (score: 1)
- Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:31:37 -0800
- om
- /archives/xfs/2002-11/msg00543.html (10,188 bytes)
- 3. s pagebuf request (score: 1)
- Author: EN Peter <fuji@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:47:06 +0100
- ss context (not interrupt context). So _end_pagebuf_page_io_multi() may be ca
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00643.html (7,849 bytes)
- 4. et_dentry patch for 2.5.44 (score: 1)
- Author: h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Oct 2002 09:10:34 -0600
- time ago when I started doing 2.5 nfsd testing, and I was sure I commited it - but it's certainly not in the repository. I'm chekcing in my version now which is functionally
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00654.html (8,408 bytes)
- 5. ?? (score: 1)
- Author: ksimach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:51:13 +0100
- hem I look at the diff at http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/linux-2.4-xfs/linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c.diff?r1=1.279&r2=1.280 I don't know either what your rationale for this was, but it seems we n
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00674.html (9,823 bytes)
- 6. is the results of my last question... (score: 1)
- Author: Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:57:35 -0800
- es, the external log needs it's own partition, on any disk. I suppose a whole disk might work, but that would be a horrible waste of space. :) LVM is very cool for things like this. Just define a 8-
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00689.html (8,002 bytes)
- 7. mount (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:30:18 +0100
- like to mount under Linux. I'm using kernel 2.4.19, and I have Which kernel are you using?
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00695.html (8,982 bytes)
- 8. Another Device (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxx
- Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:03:53 -0600
- were checked into: bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:131386a linux/fs/xfs/xfs_vfsops.c - 1.395 - remove getting the linux inode from xfs_vget
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00696.html (9,626 bytes)
- 9. page_buf stuff (score: 1)
- Author: ov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:11:02 +0100
- sed me *no end* of grief in 2.5.13 ;) I have a warmed-up version which does O_DIRECT testing as well. Just give it the `-Z' flag to force O_DIRECT access and the existing `-
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00704.html (10,871 bytes)
- 10. XFS memory corruption (score: 1)
- Author: hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:47:06 +0100
- andeen@xxxxxxx 2002-10-26 19:14 -- ** Bug 187 has bee
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01422.html (7,849 bytes)
- 11. et_dentry patch for 2.5.44 (score: 1)
- Author: >
- Date: 28 Oct 2002 09:10:34 -0600
- .pascoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added -- Summary|xfs_force_shutdown on a lvm |xfs_force_shutdown using NFS -- Additional Comments From
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01433.html (8,408 bytes)
- 12. ncel (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:51:13 +0100
- mber the why of this change, I think we can just revert to this code. Steve -- Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511 Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01453.html (9,823 bytes)
- 13. in xfs_trans_cancel (score: 1)
- Author: ord1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:57:35 -0800
- d basically the only kernel patch I added was supermount+ O(1) batch scheduler and -aa vm patch. Now the problem seems to be different. If a process writes large files (abo
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01468.html (8,002 bytes)
- 14. 't get my xfs partition to mount (score: 1)
- Author: g <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:30:18 +0100
- on types --> SGI partition support compiled into the kernel, yet whe
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01474.html (8,982 bytes)
- 15. on to mount (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2002 17:03:53 -0600
- s *much* faster than anythiny else presently available for Linux.
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01475.html (9,626 bytes)
- 16. : Here is the results of my last question... (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 06:11:02 +0100
- .sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:131438a linux/fs/xfs/linux/xfs_aops.c - 1.11 - fsx (file system exerciser orginally from NeXT
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01483.html (10,871 bytes)
- 17. Little questions (score: 1)
- Author: yoros@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 22:47:06 +0100
- Hi, I have a few questions about XFS and generic filesystem management. The first question is about the creation of sparse files. I want to learn more and more. Another question is related to the pro
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02201.html (7,879 bytes)
- 18. Re: Little questions (score: 1)
- Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Oct 2002 09:10:34 -0600
- The more extents a file has, the longer it takes to delete it, yes. It is not the amount of space in a file, but the number of extents which matters. I can remove a 4000 extent file in less than 2 se
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02212.html (8,466 bytes)
- 19. Re: Little questions (score: 1)
- Author: yoros@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:51:13 +0100
- Yes, I know that the files I'm deleting has a lot of extents but I also know that other filesystems are faster deleting files. Yes, I can understand that XFS must to "delete" some blocks that contain
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02232.html (9,948 bytes)
- 20. Re: Little questions (score: 1)
- Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:57:35 -0800
- It really depends. For large files, XFS is *much* faster than anythiny else presently available for Linux.
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02247.html (8,124 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu