Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Curious\s+about\s+mount\s+options\s+and\s+Direct\s+IO\.\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. fs failed on hppa (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 14:59:12 -0500
uped with the
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00570.html (7,154 bytes)

2. mpare Linux journalised filesystem, part II. (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:05:21 -0700
newuname({sys="Linux", node="palinux", ...}) = 0 brk(0) = 0x60000 mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00571.html (7,929 bytes)

3. rious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 15:10:18 -0500
...}) = 0 brk(0) = 0x60000 mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00572.html (8,267 bytes)

4. rect IO. (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:37:24 -0700
question about XFS's capabilities to actually do anything in a DIO mode.I didn't see any mount options for DirectIO, just osyncisdsync. Our app is Oracl
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00574.html (9,036 bytes)

5. To compare Linux journalised filesystem, part II. (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 16:44:03 -0500
the original metadata change which allocated or freed space. So while we do not have data journalling, quota updates are journalled. Steve -- Steve Lord
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00577.html (8,660 bytes)

6. urious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: @xxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 17:35:30 -0500
a few big files (they were ISO images). Why do XFS waste such time for deleting that files? Note: It happends to me a lot of times... Process: I make, re
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg00580.html (8,816 bytes)

7. pare Linux journalised filesystem, part II. (score: 1)
Author: kita Danilov <Nikita@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 14:59:12 -0500
.19-aa1 + XFS + LVM + QLogic 2300's and 6.01 drivers. Removing LVM from the mix has, so far, kept us sane. I'm trying to scare up any information I can, because the we
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01349.html (7,154 bytes)

8. (score: 1)
Author: n Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:05:21 -0700
g to scare up any information I can, because the we
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01350.html (7,929 bytes)

9. e Linux journalised filesystem, part II. (score: 1)
Author: xxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 15:10:18 -0500
ecause the we
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01351.html (8,267 bytes)

10. s failed on hppa (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:37:24 -0700
ion and won't be grouped with the
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01353.html (9,036 bytes)

11. t IO. (score: 1)
Author: x>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 16:44:03 -0500
abilities to actually do anything in a DIO mode.I didn't see any mount options for DirectIO, just osyncisdsync. Our app is Oracl
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01356.html (8,660 bytes)

12. ous about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxx
Date: 24 Oct 2002 17:35:30 -0500
ange which allocated or freed space. So while we do not have data journalling, quota updates are journalled. Steve -- Steve Lord
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg01359.html (8,816 bytes)

13. Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 14:59:12 -0500
What benefits, if any, would we see by using direct IO with XFS on very large FS?(like 300 and 500GB FS) TIA Austin
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02128.html (7,154 bytes)

14. Re: Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:05:21 -0700
It depends what you are doing... --cw
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02129.html (8,047 bytes)

15. Re: Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 15:10:18 -0500
I agree, but I guess my question was a general question about XFS's capabilities to actually do anything in a DIO mode.I didn't see any mount options for DirectIO, just osyncisdsync. Our app is Oracl
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02130.html (8,327 bytes)

16. Re: Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:37:24 -0700
XFS under Linux supports O_DIRECT. For some applications, it's a bug win, for others, it's not. O_DIRECT means reduced memcpy when doing a read reduced memcpy when doing a write *much* lower vm press
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02132.html (9,186 bytes)

17. Re: Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 16:44:03 -0500
O_DIRECT is not a mount option, you open a file with that flag, and do I/O in a prescribed fashion. You can't "magically" get O_DIRECT behavior across a filesystem with just a mount option. An old pa
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02135.html (8,840 bytes)

18. Re: Curious about mount options and Direct IO. (score: 1)
Author: Austin Gonyou <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Oct 2002 17:35:30 -0500
Kewl Thanks Much! :)
/archives/xfs/2002-10/msg02138.html (8,910 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu