Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*to\s+compare\s+journalised\s+file\s+systems\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*to\s+compare\s+journalised\s+file\s+systems\s*$/: 75 ]

Total 75 documents matching your query.

1. to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: Fabien Combernous <fcombernous@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:46:59 +0200; istoph in the previous email about xfs that should allow compilation of xfs. You also may want to try to regenerate the fs with mkfs ins; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00317.html (9,780 bytes)
2. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: Ethan Benson <erbenson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:56:26 -0800; em, in order to be able to compare them self. I need accurate information if i want to make a good study. Thoses informations have to per; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00319.html (9,545 bytes)
3. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: Olaf FrÄ…czyk <olaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: 16 Oct 2002 11:22:45 +0200; my filesystems. On one of my fs xfs_repairs ends with the following error. I'm using XFS 1.2pre kernel and utilities.. The second xfs_r; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00320.html (9,723 bytes)
4. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:25:54 +0200; The second xfs_r; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00321.html (10,189 bytes)
5. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author:; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 05:50:47 -0400 (EDT); aska.net/~erbenson/ Attachment: pgp4Pglf; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00322.html (9,331 bytes)
6. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author:; Date: 16 Oct 2002 11:50:08 +0200; en using XFS and samba for about 1.5-2 years with no problems. Regards, Olaf; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00323.html (10,846 bytes)
7. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 12:38:53 -0800; that this "problem" (if it is) could be repaired. Pedro -- Pedro Martinez Juliá \ yoros@xxxxxxxx )| yoros@xxxxxxxxxx / http://yoros.cjb.; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00343.html (11,026 bytes)
8. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:26:52 +0200; sms/slinx/2.5.x-xfs Modid: 2.5.x-xfs:slinx:130187a linux/drivers/mtd/cmdline.c - 1.1 linux/sound/usb/usbmixer_maps.c - 1.1 linux/fs/nfs/; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00344.html (9,789 bytes)
9. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:41:20 -0400 (EDT); ers assume that everybody has synchronous rename() like traditional BSD FFS. 'd' (don't dump) should be also simple and useful. and of c; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00346.html (11,602 bytes)
10. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:47:59 -0800; PTED) can be generated by xfs_repair itself (via libxfs). Its not supposed to happen, but it can. :( Running ltrace on xfs_repair would help to find the offending routine in libxfs. chee; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00347.html (10,959 bytes)
11. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 13:50:43 -0800; an expert level C programmer, but I will examine the code and see if I am able to come up with anything and submit patches. Regards, -tj; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00348.html (11,261 bytes)
12. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 16 Oct 2002 16:48:22 -0500; s quite a challenge, unless your familier with its internals its quite easy to get lost. i believe the right place for them is the di_fl; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00349.html (11,531 bytes)
13. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 16 Oct 2002 16:53:10 -0500; ries. there is no chattr +D at least in my version of it. xfs already honors an extended attribute for files only, the maintainers believ; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00350.html (10,323 bytes)
14. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:01:07 +0200; tended attribute for files only, the maintainers believ; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00351.html (10,734 bytes)
15. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:04:00 +0200; we would need to map the setting of the bits down into; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00352.html (11,401 bytes)
16. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: 16 Oct 2002 17:02:11 -0500; ar as I know. You have to handle them in fs specific code. Even more interesting looking at the source and testing it at least append on; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00353.html (10,671 bytes)
17. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:06:51 -0800; =AacDdijsSu] [-v version] files... If 'the maintainers' really said such a thing then I disagree with the maintainers. Honoring it for d; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00354.html (10,956 bytes)
18. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 23:09:48 +0100; file? What happens when you remove the last directory entry which points at it? That in itself is not an operation on the 'u' file. But,; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00355.html (10,350 bytes)
19. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:10:15 -0800; st implemented this ioctl. ideally there should probably be a standardized and generic call for inode flags like this, but since not just; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00356.html (10,476 bytes)
20. Re: to compare journalised file systems (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:15:24 -0800; s to EOF. pwrite goes down that same code path too so it also gets the append enforced. In your testing were you testing real writes, or; /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00357.html (11,290 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]