Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+issue\s+under\s+2\.6\.25\.13\s+kernel\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+issue\s+under\s+2\.6\.25\.13\s+kernel\s*$/: 24 ]

Total 24 documents matching your query.

1. XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: "Sławomir Nowakowski" <nailman23@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:40 +0200; Dear All, We have a problem with implementing xfs file system for Linux. The problem appears after mounting xfs file system on 2.6.25.13 kernel that is created on 2.6.17.13 kernel. File system is cre; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00348.html (9,434 bytes)
2. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author:; Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:05:24 +1000; Yeah, we reserved 4MB of space for unreserved delayed metadata allocations to allow transactions to succeed when at ENOSPC. That reservation is accounted as 'used space' to prevent it being used by d; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00358.html (10,236 bytes)
3. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author:; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:08:29 +0200; 2008/8/23 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thank you for information. For tests we have used two kernels: 2.6.17.13 and 2.6.25.13 We have created following partition map: Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB,; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00377.html (14,093 bytes)
4. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:41:33 +1000; .... ..... Oh, look, yet another editor that doesn't safely handle ENOSPC and trashes files when it can't overwrite them. That's not an XFS problem - I suggest raising a bug against the editor.... Ha; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00388.html (10,931 bytes)
5. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: x; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:53:23 +0200; 2008/8/26 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Dear Dave, Can you please take a look at the following outputs of some commands run under 2.6.17.17 and 2.6.25.13 kernels? Here is a situation on 2.6.17.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00400.html (15,224 bytes)
6. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:52:43 +1000; The counts.* numbers are the real numbers, not th statfs numbers which are somewhat made up - the inode count for example is influenced by the amount of free space.... .... More free space, therefore; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00409.html (13,253 bytes)
7. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: x>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:09:18 +0200; Dear Dave, We really apreciate your help.. In the realtion to previous correspondations about differences between implementation of kernels 2.6.17.13 and 2.6.25.13 we'd like to ask some questions. We; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00418.html (16,545 bytes)
8. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxx; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:20:05 +1000; After removing the reservation with xfs_io (the big difference), I don't see why you need to hack the kernel as well. Have you got such little margin in your filesystem provisioning that you can't sp; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00420.html (11,161 bytes)
9. XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:40 +0200; Dear All, We have a problem with implementing xfs file system for Linux. The problem appears after mounting xfs file system on 2.6.25.13 kernel that is created on 2.6.17.13 kernel. File system is cre; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00796.html (9,434 bytes)
10. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:05:24 +1000; Yeah, we reserved 4MB of space for unreserved delayed metadata allocations to allow transactions to succeed when at ENOSPC. That reservation is accounted as 'used space' to prevent it being used by d; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00806.html (10,236 bytes)
11. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:08:29 +0200; 2008/8/23 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thank you for information. For tests we have used two kernels: 2.6.17.13 and 2.6.25.13 We have created following partition map: Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB,; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00825.html (14,093 bytes)
12. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:41:33 +1000; .... ..... Oh, look, yet another editor that doesn't safely handle ENOSPC and trashes files when it can't overwrite them. That's not an XFS problem - I suggest raising a bug against the editor.... Ha; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00836.html (10,931 bytes)
13. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxxxx; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:53:23 +0200; 2008/8/26 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Dear Dave, Can you please take a look at the following outputs of some commands run under 2.6.17.17 and 2.6.25.13 kernels? Here is a situation on 2.6.17.; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00848.html (15,224 bytes)
14. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:52:43 +1000; The counts.* numbers are the real numbers, not th statfs numbers which are somewhat made up - the inode count for example is influenced by the amount of free space.... .... More free space, therefore; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00857.html (13,253 bytes)
15. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxxxx>; Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:09:18 +0200; Dear Dave, We really apreciate your help.. In the realtion to previous correspondations about differences between implementation of kernels 2.6.17.13 and 2.6.25.13 we'd like to ask some questions. We; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00866.html (16,545 bytes)
16. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxx; Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:20:05 +1000; After removing the reservation with xfs_io (the big difference), I don't see why you need to hack the kernel as well. Have you got such little margin in your filesystem provisioning that you can't sp; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg00868.html (11,161 bytes)
17. XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: "Sawomir Nowakowski" <nailman23@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:03:40 +0200; Dear All, We have a problem with implementing xfs file system for Linux. The problem appears after mounting xfs file system on 2.6.25.13 kernel that is created on 2.6.17.13 kernel. File system is cre; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01244.html (9,434 bytes)
18. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:05:24 +1000; Yeah, we reserved 4MB of space for unreserved delayed metadata allocations to allow transactions to succeed when at ENOSPC. That reservation is accounted as 'used space' to prevent it being used by d; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01254.html (10,343 bytes)
19. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: "Sawomir Nowakowski" <nailman23@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 13:08:29 +0200; 2008/8/23 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: Thank you for information. For tests we have used two kernels: 2.6.17.13 and 2.6.25.13 We have created following partition map: Disk /dev/sda: 500.1 GB,; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01273.html (14,259 bytes)
20. Re: XFS issue under 2.6.25.13 kernel (score: 1): Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:41:33 +1000; .... ..... Oh, look, yet another editor that doesn't safely handle ENOSPC and trashes files when it can't overwrite them. That's not an XFS problem - I suggest raising a bug against the editor.... Ha; /archives/xfs/2008-08/msg01284.html (11,147 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]