Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Suggestions\s+for\s+kernel\/XFS\s+version\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Suggestions\s+for\s+kernel\/XFS\s+version\?\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Theo Van Dinter <felicity@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:37 -0400; I've been using XFS for a while, but find myself in a bit of a quandry about where to go now... A week or two ago, my main server got very flaky (semi-constant rebooting), so I replaced the Athlon UP; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00024.html (9,268 bytes)
2. Re: Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 02 Oct 2002 10:58:24 -0500; Just a simple answer, those 'snapshots' that you see are probably a lot more stable than 1.1 or 1.0 were. Most of what has gone into xfs since 1.1 has been bug fixes and code cleanup. In general I ru; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00027.html (10,635 bytes)
3. Re: Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:04:33 +0800; As a constant follower of the XFS CVS tree -- and a fellow user of a 3ware card (although I have never used LVM) -- I have found that the XFS CVS tree is very acceptably stable. The SGI team does a p; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00028.html (9,385 bytes)
4. hifting constants we do not use (score: 1): Author: eve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:37 -0400; I don't know about xfs/linux or any other common linux FS, but I _assume_ the newly GPLed FS from Oracle (OCFS) supports O_DIRECT. http://ocfs.otncast.otnxchange.oracle.com/servlets/ProjectHome Unfo; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00803.html (9,268 bytes)
5. - ACL docs (score: 1): Author: oley <ctooley@xxxxxxxx>; Date: 02 Oct 2002 10:58:24 -0500; following file(s) were checked into: bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.5.x-xfs Modid: 2.5.x-xfs:slinx:; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00806.html (10,635 bytes)
6. irect io on linux (score: 1): Author: eve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:04:33 +0800; week or two ago, my main server got very flaky (semi-constant rebooting), so I replaced the Athlon UP; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00807.html (9,385 bytes)
7. Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Theo Van Dinter <felicity@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 11:40:37 -0400; I've been using XFS for a while, but find myself in a bit of a quandry about where to go now... A week or two ago, my main server got very flaky (semi-constant rebooting), so I replaced the Athlon UP; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01582.html (9,268 bytes)
8. Re: Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 02 Oct 2002 10:58:24 -0500; Just a simple answer, those 'snapshots' that you see are probably a lot more stable than 1.1 or 1.0 were. Most of what has gone into xfs since 1.1 has been bug fixes and code cleanup. In general I ru; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01585.html (10,693 bytes)
9. Re: Suggestions for kernel/XFS version? (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 00:04:33 +0800; As a constant follower of the XFS CVS tree -- and a fellow user of a 3ware card (although I have never used LVM) -- I have found that the XFS CVS tree is very acceptably stable. The SGI team does a p; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01586.html (9,458 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]