Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[PATCH\]\s+Give\s+logbufs\s+a\s+better\s+default\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: od <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:35:25 +0200
A long standing problem in XFS is that in the default configuration metadata performance is not that great because it uses not enough log buffers. There are FAQs around to fix this, but it would be b
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00079.html (8,765 bytes)

2. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: ari@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:33:14 -0500
Hi Andi, Just wondering why you picked odd numbers? Interesting idea, one issue is that during recovery, the maximum amount of outstanding I/O there might of been (i.e. number of iclog buffers) is a
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00090.html (10,633 bytes)

3. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: d <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:28:23 +0200
Usual handwaving. Of course i should have picked power of two just to make it look more scientific, but the range was a bit too small for that ;) 3 was the old default, which seems ok for small syste
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00091.html (11,057 bytes)

4. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 17:04:15 -0500
2 was the default, but OK. It could be. Without going and looking at the code again, I think the issue is that we have to do an extra scan over MAX_ICLOG_SIZE*MAX_ICLOG_NUM log space looking at each
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00100.html (13,048 bytes)

5. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: ood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:10:06 -0500
I have a filesystem with an external log where I've increase logbufs to 8 and also the size to 256k. With this I see *much* better performance for somethings like cp -Rl and rm, but not reliably... t
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00175.html (8,538 bytes)

6. [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:35:25 +0200
A long standing problem in XFS is that in the default configuration metadata performance is not that great because it uses not enough log buffers. There are FAQs around to fix this, but it would be b
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00407.html (8,765 bytes)

7. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author:
Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:33:14 -0500
Hi Andi, Just wondering why you picked odd numbers? Interesting idea, one issue is that during recovery, the maximum amount of outstanding I/O there might of been (i.e. number of iclog buffers) is a
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00418.html (10,633 bytes)

8. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:28:23 +0200
Usual handwaving. Of course i should have picked power of two just to make it look more scientific, but the range was a bit too small for that ;) 3 was the old default, which seems ok for small syste
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00419.html (11,057 bytes)

9. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: 11 Jun 2003 17:04:15 -0500
2 was the default, but OK. It could be. Without going and looking at the code again, I think the issue is that we have to do an extra scan over MAX_ICLOG_SIZE*MAX_ICLOG_NUM log space looking at each
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00428.html (13,048 bytes)

10. Re: [PATCH] Give logbufs a better default (score: 1)
Author: xxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:10:06 -0500
I have a filesystem with an external log where I've increase logbufs to 8 and also the size to 256k. With this I see *much* better performance for somethings like cp -Rl and rm, but not reliably... t
/archives/xfs/2003-06/msg00503.html (8,538 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu