Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Fragmentation\s+\(was\:\s+XFS\s+NFS\s+server\s+Oops\)\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:29:14 +0200
/dev/vg2/home : actual 56720, ideal 55427, fragmentation factor 2.28% /dev/vg2/tmp : actual 5016, ideal 5004, fragmentation factor 0.24% /dev/vg2/usr : actual 111119, ideal 111110, fragmentation fac
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00246.html (8,975 bytes)

2. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: >
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:26:34 -0500
xfs_db: frag -f actual 355, ideal 29, fragmentation factor 91.83% Try running xfs_bmap on those iso images, just give it file names as its parameter. It will report how large the individual chunks of
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00248.html (10,764 bytes)

3. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:29:14 +0200
/dev/vg2/home : actual 56720, ideal 55427, fragmentation factor 2.28% /dev/vg2/tmp : actual 5016, ideal 5004, fragmentation factor 0.24% /dev/vg2/usr : actual 111119, ideal 111110, fragmentation fac
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00790.html (8,975 bytes)

4. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xx>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 21:26:34 -0500
xfs_db: frag -f actual 355, ideal 29, fragmentation factor 91.83% Try running xfs_bmap on those iso images, just give it file names as its parameter. It will report how large the individual chunks of
/archives/xfs/2002-04/msg00792.html (10,764 bytes)

5. Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:37:43 +0800 (PHT)
Cool. (Obviously I never really dug into the xfs_db manpage before to find stuff like this out.) That seemed harmless so I checked out all my filesystems. I got fragmentation factors from a high of 5
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00409.html (9,394 bytes)

6. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:26:48 +1100
While on the subject of xfs_fsr, it would also be of interest to know what risks are involved in running it. For example, what damage can be caused if the system crashes while files are being defragm
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00410.html (9,196 bytes)

7. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:19:49 -0800
I've got a filesystem with 28 .iso images, the frags -f command shows: xfs_db: frag -f actual 355, ideal 29, fragmentation factor 91.83% yikes... -- -rupa
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00411.html (9,297 bytes)

8. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:48:06 -0800
I assume that's saying that ideally, those 28 files should take up just 28 contiguous chunks of disk, but in fact they're taking 355. If those ISOs are all 600 megs then your average contiguous chunk
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00413.html (9,692 bytes)

9. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:09:16 -0600
Probably hold off for now on running fsr. Look at the other numbers on the output. The actual and ideal are more interesting. If you look at these, the difference is the number of extra extents you h
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00430.html (10,309 bytes)

10. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:19 -0500
We were stressing some systems with 1.6TB drive arrays and ended up with very full, very fragmented filesystems. This led to fs corruption and/or sysstem instability when the system ran out of memory
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00448.html (10,138 bytes)

11. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:25:27 +0100
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6D057306; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:25:29 +0100 (CET) Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing Lis
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg00450.html (10,762 bytes)

12. Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:37:43 +0800 (PHT)
Cool. (Obviously I never really dug into the xfs_db manpage before to find stuff like this out.) That seemed harmless so I checked out all my filesystems. I got fragmentation factors from a high of 5
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01114.html (9,394 bytes)

13. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:26:48 +1100
While on the subject of xfs_fsr, it would also be of interest to know what risks are involved in running it. For example, what damage can be caused if the system crashes while files are being defragm
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01115.html (9,196 bytes)

14. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:19:49 -0800
I've got a filesystem with 28 .iso images, the frags -f command shows: xfs_db: frag -f actual 355, ideal 29, fragmentation factor 91.83% yikes... -- -rupa
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01116.html (9,297 bytes)

15. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:48:06 -0800
I assume that's saying that ideally, those 28 files should take up just 28 contiguous chunks of disk, but in fact they're taking 355. If those ISOs are all 600 megs then your average contiguous chunk
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01118.html (9,692 bytes)

16. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:09:16 -0600
Probably hold off for now on running fsr. Look at the other numbers on the output. The actual and ideal are more interesting. If you look at these, the difference is the number of extra extents you h
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01135.html (10,309 bytes)

17. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:12:19 -0500
We were stressing some systems with 1.6TB drive arrays and ended up with very full, very fragmented filesystems. This led to fs corruption and/or sysstem instability when the system ran out of memory
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01153.html (10,138 bytes)

18. Re: Fragmentation (was: XFS NFS server Oops) (score: 1)
Author: rd@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:25:27 +0100
from mobile.sauter-bc.com (unknown [10.1.6.21]) by basel1.sauter-bc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6D057306; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:25:29 +0100 (CET) Cc: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>, Linux XFS Mailing Lis
/archives/xfs/2002-03/msg01155.html (10,762 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu