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

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*XFS\s+and\s+write\s+barrier\s*$/: 45 ]

Total 45 documents matching your query.

21. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:24:31 -0700; actually, it turns out i'm a retard and can't drive git so that fix might not be in there either; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00535.html (9,017 bytes)
22. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:31:22 +1000; Noone here seems to know, maybe Neil &| the other folks on linux-raid can help us out with details on status of MD and write barriers? cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00553.html (9,740 bytes)
23. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:58:56 +1000; "Journalling filesystems need write barrier" isn't really accurate. They can make good use of write barrier if it is supported, and where it isn't supported, they should use blkdev_issue_flush in com; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00557.html (10,488 bytes)
24. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:04:06 +1000; blkdev_issue_flush() causes a write cache flush - just like a barrier typically causes a write cache flush up to the I/O with the barrier in it. Both of these mechanisms provide the same thing - an I; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00562.html (11,290 bytes)
25. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:27:48 +0200; Am Dienstag 18 Juli 2006 19:04 schrieb David Chinner: Hello David, well now it gets interesting. If both provide the same thing, whats the difference? Does a device need to support more than this cac; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00563.html (10,781 bytes)
26. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:21:35 +1000; A WRITE_BARRIER I/O can be optimised by smart drivers, protocols and hardware to minimise the adverse effects of the barrier, whereas a cache flush is a brute force cache cleaning mechanism that cann; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00564.html (12,177 bytes)
27. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:41:31 +1000; A barrier means a lot more than just a flush. It means wait for all proceeding requests to commit flush write this request flush Any block device that uses the io scheduler could probably manage this; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00596.html (12,043 bytes)
28. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:34:41 +0200; Am Dienstag 18 Juli 2006 21:21 schrieb David Chinner: Hello David, Thanks for your answer. I think now I understand it: The driver and the drive does a cache flush immediately, but they can delay a w; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00611.html (11,217 bytes)
29. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 11:31:15 +0200; Am Dienstag 18 Juli 2006 21:21 schrieb David Chinner: Hello David, I like to understand this difference a bit better. As far as I understand there are three important differences between blkdev_issue; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00656.html (10,596 bytes)
30. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:36:19 +0200; Timetravel? // Stefan Attachment: signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00657.html (9,093 bytes)
31. XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:48:56 +0200; Hello, I am currently gathering information to write an article about journal filesystems with emphasis on write barrier functionality, how it works, why journalling filesystems need write barrier an; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00912.html (9,429 bytes)
32. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:28:57 -0700; write barriers are enabled by default now, they have been for some months (since the end of March) usually in the case of a kernel crash the disks are able to ti flush (unlike with power loss) so i w; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00915.html (8,980 bytes)
33. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:53:39 +0200; Am Samstag 15 Juli 2006 21:28 schrieb Chris Wedgwood: Hallo Chris, yes, but for 2.6.17 which was still in development. The stable release of it appeared kernel.org on 18-Jun-2006 02:10 according to t; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00916.html (10,405 bytes)
34. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:32:38 +0800; Cool! Would you by any chance have information on the interaction between journal filesystems with write barrier functionality, and software RAID (md)? Based on my experience with 2.6.17, XFS detects; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00919.html (9,416 bytes)
35. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:43:54 -0700; well, i guess it depends how you look at it some people (myself included) saw problems when write barriers were enabled, but that was quite some time ago and it wasn't clear if this was really an xfs; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00922.html (10,407 bytes)
36. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>; Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:24:31 -0700; actually, it turns out i'm a retard and can't drive git so that fix might not be in there either; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00925.html (9,173 bytes)
37. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:31:22 +1000; Noone here seems to know, maybe Neil &| the other folks on linux-raid can help us out with details on status of MD and write barriers? cheers. -- Nathan; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00943.html (9,871 bytes)
38. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:58:56 +1000; "Journalling filesystems need write barrier" isn't really accurate. They can make good use of write barrier if it is supported, and where it isn't supported, they should use blkdev_issue_flush in com; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00947.html (10,581 bytes)
39. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 03:04:06 +1000; blkdev_issue_flush() causes a write cache flush - just like a barrier typically causes a write cache flush up to the I/O with the barrier in it. Both of these mechanisms provide the same thing - an I; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00952.html (11,449 bytes)
40. Re: XFS and write barrier (score: 1): Author: Martin Steigerwald <Martin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:27:48 +0200; Am Dienstag 18 Juli 2006 19:04 schrieb David Chinner: Hello David, well now it gets interesting. If both provide the same thing, whats the difference? Does a device need to support more than this cac; /archives/xfs/2006-07/msg00953.html (10,928 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]