Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\,\s+4K\s+stacks\,\s+and\s+Red\s+Hat\s*$/: 34 ]

Total 34 documents matching your query.

1. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Alexander Bergolth <leo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:12:45 +0200
I've switched to linuxant's 16k stack kernels for fedora and the machine didn't crash any more. (Although an 8k stack would probably have been enough.) http://www.linuxant.com/driverloader/wlan/full/
/archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00004.html (9,198 bytes)

2. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: xxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 14:12:45 +0200
I've switched to linuxant's 16k stack kernels for fedora and the machine didn't crash any more. (Although an 8k stack would probably have been enough.) http://www.linuxant.com/driverloader/wlan/full/
/archives/xfs/2005-08/msg00177.html (9,198 bytes)

3. XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
Can anyone summarize the current status of XFS and 4K stacks? There was recently a thread[1] on the nahant (RHEL4) mailing list where it was stated[2] that one reason for the exclusion of XFS in RHEL
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00035.html (8,292 bytes)

4. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:41:44 -0500
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: Can anyone summarize the current status of XFS and 4K stacks? There was recently a thread[1] on the nahant (RHEL4) mailing list where it was stated[2] that one reason for t
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00036.html (10,397 bytes)

5. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:43:15 -0400 (EDT)
Oh, I share those same suspicions. The only reason I pointed at that post is that it's the first time I've heard anything from them other than "XFS doesn't provide anything not provided by ext3". Not
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00037.html (10,789 bytes)

6. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:00:11 -0500 (EST)
Its worse than this too. Fedora Core ships with native XFS support. Unfortunately, Redhat pretends like its not there. When I submitted a bug a few days ago against grub failing to work during OS ins
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00038.html (12,153 bytes)

7. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 14:37:40 +1000
I put in a bit of time awhile back to get the largest of these issues sorted out - perhaps (almost certainly) RHEL4 is an older 2.6 kernel than the one containing those changes. As other cases pop up
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00040.html (9,913 bytes)

8. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Keith Owens <kaos@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 16:13:17 +1000
Plus the fact that SLES9 comes with a kernel debugger, unlike RHEL.
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00041.html (8,807 bytes)

9. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Net Llama! <netllama@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 09:58:48 -0500 (EST)
And a wonderful collection of bugs that need the debugger to be debugged ;) No offense to any SuSE fans here, but SLES9 is one of the most unstable, buggy distributions I've ever used, at least with
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00042.html (9,688 bytes)

10. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Alexander Bergolth <leo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:48:11 +0200
I'm getting frequent stack overflows on one system, using xfs, lvm2, sw-raid and libata but I don't know, if they are XFS-related. I've attached the stack-trace of my last crash, using FC4 kernel-2.6
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00061.html (21,271 bytes)

11. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:56:26 +1000
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *cough* Hmmm - xfs on lvm on md on ide ...? Looks like its death by a thousand cuts.. thats the sort of case Steve keeps talking about. You will be able to crash using any
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00064.html (11,232 bytes)

12. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: 13 Jul 2005 04:12:00 +0200
Eventually even 8k stack systems might run into problems. A generic way to solve this would be to let the block layer who calls into the various stacking layers check how much stack is left first and
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00066.html (10,556 bytes)

13. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:16:16 -0500
Andi Kleen wrote: Eventually even 8k stack systems might run into problems. A generic way to solve this would be to let the block layer who calls into the various stacking layers check how much stack
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00067.html (10,697 bytes)

14. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:10:41 +0200
ISCSI over something would be difficult again because that layering is invisible to the block layer. Maybe the iscsi block driver would need to declare how much stack it needs or do similar checks b
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00068.html (10,469 bytes)

15. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:43:13 +0100
That iscsi driver needs very little stack because it hands off all work to a helper thread.
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00075.html (10,725 bytes)

16. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:01:17 -0500
Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:10:41AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: In a previous life I actually had to resort to allocating a chunk of memory, linking it into the stack, then carry
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00076.html (11,126 bytes)

17. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:12:17 +0200
(sorry for the late reply, vacation) Sounds like a possible solution for the problem. 4kb stack is never going to be completely enough for some block layer stacking setups. Would need some careful wo
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00103.html (10,784 bytes)

18. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 03:57:00 +0200
Well, it's better than crashing. Also I think it could be a problem even with 8k stacks when the stacking setups become more complex. -Andi
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00104.html (9,491 bytes)

19. XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Joshua Baker-LePain <jlb17@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 11:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
Can anyone summarize the current status of XFS and 4K stacks? There was recently a thread[1] on the nahant (RHEL4) mailing list where it was stated[2] that one reason for the exclusion of XFS in RHEL
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00175.html (8,292 bytes)

20. Re: XFS, 4K stacks, and Red Hat (score: 1)
Author: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 10:41:44 -0500
Joshua Baker-LePain wrote: Can anyone summarize the current status of XFS and 4K stacks? There was recently a thread[1] on the nahant (RHEL4) mailing list where it was stated[2] that one reason for t
/archives/xfs/2005-07/msg00176.html (10,397 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu