Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*dir\s+hashes\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*dir\s+hashes\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 03:30:03 +0300 (EEST); tl. Minor relat; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00173.html (6,979 bytes)
2. Re: dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 08 Oct 2002 10:33:08 -0500; sgi.com:/isms/s; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00194.html (7,894 bytes)
3. Re: dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:30:54 +0300 (EEST); x/sound/usb/usb; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00204.html (8,238 bytes)
4. methods (score: 1): Author: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 03:30:03 +0300 (EEST); er defined in the Linux port.. The following file(s) were checked into: bonnie.engr.sgi.com:/isms/slinx/2.4.x-xfs Modid: 2.4.x-xfs:slinx:129236a linux/fs/xfs/xfs_rw.h - 1.69 linux/fs/xfs/xf; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00952.html (6,979 bytes)
5. (score: 1): Author: eve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 08 Oct 2002 10:33:08 -0500; m *cough* -- those would be the packages I built on my (debian/unstable) laptop just yesterday, right? ;-) It seems to be a problem, when building those debian packages on a xfs-Partition...; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00973.html (7,894 bytes)
6. tat fix (score: 1): Author: eve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:30:54 +0300 (EEST); s on 03:02 ...the moment I mention an initrd it does that. The moment I either comment the line out in lilo or; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00983.html (8,238 bytes)
7. dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 03:30:03 +0300 (EEST); Hi I have recently run into some performance issues with XFS and directories with lots (>1k) entries. I knew XFS was immune to this sort of problems (if I remember well only ext2/ext3 did linear sear; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01731.html (6,979 bytes)
8. Re: dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: 08 Oct 2002 10:33:08 -0500; Performance issues on lookup, or on modifications to the dir? Yes we do have hashing in directories, which means lookups do not need to walk the whole dir. Larger directories are more work to process; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01752.html (7,988 bytes)
9. Re: dir hashes (score: 1): Author: Mihai RUSU <dizzy@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:30:54 +0300 (EEST); Hi Steve Good to hear that. I was wondering only on "lookup" case. I see. Im not a specialist and Ill be very glad if someone would give me a formula to compute the number of average comparations giv; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01762.html (8,270 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 9
Page: [1]