Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+DPX\s+files\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+DPX\s+files\s*$/: 15 ]

Total 15 documents matching your query.

1. XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: "AndrewL733@xxxxxxx" <AndrewL733@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:26:28 -0400; Hello, For many years and with great success, I have been capturing and editing high bandwidth video on Linux systems with XFS filesystems exported via Samba. However, I am currently running into a p; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00284.html (12,528 bytes)
2. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:18:25 +0100; Le Sat, 31 Oct 2009 08:26:28 -0400 vous écriviez: Maybe you should try mounting the XFS filesystem with these options : nobarrier,noatime -- -- Emmanuel Florac www.intellique.com --; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00285.html (7,506 bytes)
3. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: "AndrewL733@xxxxxxx" <AndrewL733@xxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:37:30 -0400; Maybe you should try mounting the XFS filesystem with these options : nobarrier,noatime Thanks. Already doing that -- 3ware controller does not support barriers, so that's automatically ruled out (yo; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00286.html (7,852 bytes)
4. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:48:36 +0100; Le Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:37:30 -0400 vous écriviez: 3Ware controller definitely supports barriers... What model are you using BTW? On the 9650, the latest firmware gave me a solid 15-20% performance bo; /archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00287.html (8,172 bytes)
5. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:05:27 +0100; I believe for a 15 drive RAID-6, where 2 disks are used for redundancy, the correct mkfs would be: mkfs -t xfs -d su=65536,sw=13 /dev/sdXX That is, you tell XFS how many *data disks* there are, not h; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00002.html (8,307 bytes)
6. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:52:49 +0100; Le Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:05:27 +0100 Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait: Yes you're right, I replied a bit too quickly :) The 3Ware is so slow it's almost unusable without; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00004.html (7,884 bytes)
7. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:34:34 -0600; Maybe you should try mounting the XFS filesystem with these options : nobarrier,noatime Thanks. Already doing that -- 3ware controller does not support barriers, so that's automatically ruled out (y; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00013.html (9,588 bytes)
8. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: "AndrewL733@xxxxxxx" <AndrewL733@xxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:50:48 -0500; I believe for a 15 drive RAID-6, where 2 disks are used forredundancy, the correct mkfs would be: mkfs -t xfs -d su=65536,sw=13 /dev/sdXX Yes you're right, I replied a bit too quickly :) Thank you fo; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00015.html (11,597 bytes)
9. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:58:35 +0100; Don't mix up the controller write cache vs. disk write cache. The controller write cache should be on whenever you have a BBM installed, because this brings real performance, while the disk write cac; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00017.html (8,836 bytes)
10. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 23:26:11 +0100; Le Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:50:48 -0500 vous écriviez: I'll do some checks on my side, I have several RAID systems with various RAID controllers (including 3Ware) and a nice "dpx stream" simulator from OP; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00019.html (8,991 bytes)
11. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:09:33 -0600; I believe for a 15 drive RAID-6, where 2 disks are used forredundancy, the correct mkfs would be: mkfs -t xfs -d su=65536,sw=13 /dev/sdXX Yes you're right, I replied a bit too quickly :) Thank you fo; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00021.html (12,685 bytes)
12. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Emmanuel Florac <eflorac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:19:20 +0100; Le Mon, 2 Nov 2009 22:58:35 +0100 Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> écrivait: Unfortunately there isn't any way in the 3Ware controllers to manage that. Worse, I couldn't get a; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00024.html (8,780 bytes)
13. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:58:29 +0100; Looks like you didn't read the FAQ until now, I tried to document the unclear bits as good as I could: http://www.xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q._Which_settings_does_my_RAID_controller_need_.3F mfg zmi; /archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00035.html (9,491 bytes)
14. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC); I've been under the impression that "modern disks" (TM), at minimum the server-type products, are supposed to re-use the remaining spin-energy for generating the required power and thus writing the c; /archives/xfs/2009-12/msg00122.html (7,993 bytes)
15. Re: XFS and DPX files (score: 1): Author: Michael Weissenbacher <mw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:49:51 +0100; Hi! Nope, they don't. All disks do is use the remaining spin energy to mechanically park the disk heads. Server-grade disks should always ship with their drive write cache turned off per default. The; /archives/xfs/2009-12/msg00124.html (7,488 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 15
Page: [1]