Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*10minutes\s+for\s+rm\s+\-rf\s+on\s+400MB\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*10minutes\s+for\s+rm\s+\-rf\s+on\s+400MB\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Dirk Wetter <dirkw@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 13:17:47 -0400; we've been running XFS on the data disks of our HPC Linux cluster since a while. we are quite happy with xfs, thx guys for your work! the setup is: - dual >=1GHZ box, 4GB mem - lvm 0.9beta7, phys. v; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00180.html (8,479 bytes)
2. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: "Bernhard R. Erdmann" <be@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:58:41 +0200; Some very important data is missing: - what's the I/O performance of the disk subsystem? - what was the system doing during the observed 10 min? CPU power doesn't count as much as disk I/O performan; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00182.html (9,262 bytes)
3. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Dirk Wetter <dirkw@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:42:51 -0400; Bernhard R. Erdmann wrote: we've been running XFS on the data disks of our HPC Linux cluster since a while. we are quite happy with xfs, thx guys for your work! the setup is: - dual >=1GHZ box, 4GB; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00183.html (12,003 bytes)
4. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:10:15 +0800 (PHT); This is expected. XFS does deletes synchronously. ReiserFS doesn't. ReiserFS is really good at deleting, as a matter of fact, for which reason I highly recommend it over any other Linux filesystem fo; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00184.html (9,396 bytes)
5. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:54:20 -0500; Still, 10 minutes is too long, I think. Since you're just guessing about the number of files, though, it's hard to say. If you can find out more about the data, that might offer some hints. -Eric --; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00219.html (8,191 bytes)
6. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:13:57 -0500; This is because of a fundamental difference between reiserfs operation and xfs operation. reiserfs flushes its log to disk periodically, the log could in theory be very large in memory - a crash wil; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00221.html (11,231 bytes)
7. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: Arun Ramakrishnan <ramakria@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:20:24 -0400 (EDT); I recently did rm -rf on a directory containing 6 10 GB files and it took a few seconds.I am running the XFS patched 2.4.9 kernel. Cheers, Arun.; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00222.html (8,468 bytes)
8. 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 13:17:47 -0400; we've been running XFS on the data disks of our HPC Linux cluster since a while. we are quite happy with xfs, thx guys for your work! the setup is: - dual >=1GHZ box, 4GB mem - lvm 0.9beta7, phys. v; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00858.html (8,479 bytes)
9. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 01:58:41 +0200; Some very important data is missing: - what's the I/O performance of the disk subsystem? - what was the system doing during the observed 10 min? CPU power doesn't count as much as disk I/O performan; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00860.html (9,262 bytes)
10. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 20:42:51 -0400; Bernhard R. Erdmann wrote: we've been running XFS on the data disks of our HPC Linux cluster since a while. we are quite happy with xfs, thx guys for your work! the setup is: - dual >=1GHZ box, 4GB; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00861.html (12,003 bytes)
11. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:10:15 +0800 (PHT); This is expected. XFS does deletes synchronously. ReiserFS doesn't. ReiserFS is really good at deleting, as a matter of fact, for which reason I highly recommend it over any other Linux filesystem fo; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00862.html (9,396 bytes)
12. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 09:54:20 -0500; Still, 10 minutes is too long, I think. Since you're just guessing about the number of files, though, it's hard to say. If you can find out more about the data, that might offer some hints. -Eric --; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00897.html (8,191 bytes)
13. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 10:13:57 -0500; This is because of a fundamental difference between reiserfs operation and xfs operation. reiserfs flushes its log to disk periodically, the log could in theory be very large in memory - a crash wil; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00899.html (11,231 bytes)
14. Re: 10minutes for rm -rf on 400MB (score: 1): Author: >; Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 11:20:24 -0400 (EDT); I recently did rm -rf on a directory containing 6 10 GB files and it took a few seconds.I am running the XFS patched 2.4.9 kernel. Cheers, Arun.; /archives/xfs/2001-09/msg00900.html (8,468 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]