Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Best\s+Logfile\s+size\s+for\s+XFS\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. er? (score: 1)
Author: Roger <roger.maillist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10 Feb 2002 10:07:34 -0500
ok. saw something in the archives about logfile size asked within the past 2 days but it really didn't give any clues to this question. As the FAQ states, specifing an alternate logfile size (and als
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00169.html (8,110 bytes)

2. er? (score: 1)
Author: george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ionut Georgescu)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:22:12 +0100
Well, I don't think you should worry about performance in this case. There's only metadata going into the logfile and considering the number of files you're going to have on that partition (less the
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00173.html (9,666 bytes)

3. box (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:37:43 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed A large logfile size will not help that much. Having a larger log helps a lot when you touch a lot of smaller files many
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00177.html (9,711 bytes)

4. tch (score: 1)
Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:21:28 -0600
Roger wrote: ok. saw something in the archives about logfile size asked within the past 2 days but it really didn't give any clues to this question. As the FAQ states, specifing an alternate logfile
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00193.html (9,466 bytes)

5. driver? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 10 Feb 2002 10:07:34 -0500
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00743.html (8,110 bytes)

6. driver? (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:22:12 +0100
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00747.html (9,666 bytes)

7. our box (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:37:43 +0100
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00751.html (9,711 bytes)

8. L patch (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:21:28 -0600
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg00767.html (9,466 bytes)

9. e 1.0.2 (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: 25 Nov 2001 18:54:28 -0500
t
/archives/xfs/2001-11/msg00612.html (7,746 bytes)

10. S release 1.0.2 (score: 1)
Author: xxx>
Date: 25 Nov 2001 18:54:28 -0500
get
/archives/xfs/2001-11/msg01345.html (7,746 bytes)

11. Best Logfile size for XFS (score: 1)
Author: Roger <roger.maillist@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10 Feb 2002 10:07:34 -0500
ok. saw something in the archives about logfile size asked within the past 2 days but it really didn't give any clues to this question. As the FAQ states, specifing an alternate logfile size (and als
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01317.html (8,110 bytes)

12. Re: Best Logfile size for XFS (score: 1)
Author: george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ionut Georgescu)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 17:22:12 +0100
Hi, Well, I don't think you should worry about performance in this case. There's only metadata going into the logfile and considering the number of files you're going to have on that partition (less
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01321.html (9,743 bytes)

13. Re: Best Logfile size for XFS (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:37:43 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed A large logfile size will not help that much. Having a larger log helps a lot when you touch a lot of smaller files many
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01325.html (9,742 bytes)

14. Re: Best Logfile size for XFS (score: 1)
Author: Stephen Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 08:21:28 -0600
ok. saw something in the archives about logfile size asked within the past 2 days but it really didn't give any clues to this question. As the FAQ states, specifing an alternate logfile size (and al
/archives/xfs/2002-02/msg01341.html (9,200 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu