- 1. ory data detected" (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:36:15 -0400
- ote: This is at the office. An SMP (2xAthlon MP 2000) machine with 1GB memory. The fs is exported via NFA and it was forced down when a user (on another m
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00595.html (9,156 bytes)
- 2. rruption of in-memory data detected" (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Oct 2002 07:07:01 -0500
- results (thank you). My intention is to know why this situations may happend and why XFS is slow deleting files and directories. First, I must say that I
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00596.html (12,315 bytes)
- 3. ected" (score: 1)
- Author: @xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:19:46 +0200
- goes in D state. This happens on the 2nd time of mount, strangely the 1st time it succeeds. Trace; c0107e52 <__down+82/d0> Trace; c0107fec <__down_faile
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00597.html (7,739 bytes)
- 4. s (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:41:30 -0400
- t is doing is reporting where it found a code address on the stack, it does not mean it is a currently active stack frame. You will get a different I/O p
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00598.html (7,866 bytes)
- 5. pa (score: 1)
- Author: xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:26:22 +0200
- advise]. It actually failed for 32bits release of hppa kernel because BLKGETSIZE64 is not yet implemented; in that case (see linux/include/asm-parisc/ua
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00604.html (8,989 bytes)
- 6. .2-pre2 athalon kernel rpm? (score: 1)
- Author: x>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:36:15 -0400
- nager's Asset Management version 3.1. We are looking for a few aggressive qualified companies thatwant to improve their bottom l
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01374.html (9,156 bytes)
- 7. ? (score: 1)
- Author: Luben Tuikov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Oct 2002 07:07:01 -0500
- d. This is not unique to XFS. How full was your filesystem? Has it every been completely full? I ask this because many people I'
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01375.html (12,315 bytes)
- 8. rpm? (score: 1)
- Author: xxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:19:46 +0200
- y. The fs is exported via NFA and it was forced down when a user (on another machine) was deleting files off NFS. The kernel was
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01376.html (7,739 bytes)
- 9. Digitally Connect to Your Customers (score: 1)
- Author: enberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:41:30 -0400
- . An SMP (2xAthlon MP 2000) machine with 1GB memory. The fs is exported via NFA and it was forced down when a user (on another m
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01377.html (7,866 bytes)
- 10. ng -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: Lynes <huw-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:26:22 +0200
- way I prety sure that I found a small bug at this place. Here is my full patch: -- cmd/xfsprogs/libxfs/init.c.orig 2002-10-25 12:12:29.000000000 +0200 +++ cmd
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01383.html (8,989 bytes)
- 11. xfs locking -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: Luben Tuikov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 07:36:15 -0400
- This is a dump of the stack for mount after it goes in D state. This happens on the 2nd time of mount, strangely the 1st time it succeeds. Trace; c0107e52 <__down+82/d0> Trace; c0107fec <__down_faile
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02153.html (9,156 bytes)
- 12. Re: xfs locking -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Oct 2002 07:07:01 -0500
- These stack dumps are confusing, all the output is doing is reporting where it found a code address on the stack, it does not mean it is a currently active stack frame. You will get a different I/O p
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02154.html (12,365 bytes)
- 13. Re: xfs locking -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:19:46 +0200
- just curios, why are using lvm-1.1rc2? I thought the 1.1 series are very buggy and abandoned? I've read this some time ago on the lvm Homepage but for now I can't find that article again... Christian
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02155.html (7,789 bytes)
- 14. Re: xfs locking -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: Luben Tuikov <luben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 09:41:30 -0400
- Which one should I use? The default with the kernel (2.4.19) or lvm-2.1.95.10 or lvm-2.0-{latest or beta}? -- Luben
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02156.html (7,921 bytes)
- 15. Re: xfs locking -- stack dump (score: 1)
- Author: christian.guggenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:26:22 +0200
- hmmm, personally I can't say anything about lvm2(any version) cause I've never had tried it. I don't use lvm heavily, so .... Maybe a good starting point would be the 1.0.5 release (the source code
- /archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02162.html (9,094 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu