Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*kiocluster\s*$/: 10 ]

Total 10 documents matching your query.

1. kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Dirk Steinberg <dws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:43:47 +0200
I remember that some time ago there were mount options for XFS named kio and kiocluster. Inspecting my copy of the XFS CVS tree I was unable to locate these options in the source, so apparently they
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00855.html (7,107 bytes)

2. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:22:29 +0200 (CEST)
kiocluster is gone and not available untill there is decided what to build into the kernel. In this case we are following standard kernels. There is probably going to be some form of kiocluster in 2.
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00859.html (7,814 bytes)

3. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Dirk Steinberg <dws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:24:59 +0200
What about kio? I see it's implemented for both SCSI and EIDE. How about MD and LVM? Should I expect a significant performance penalty for using XFS on top of LVM or MD instead of running it directly
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00878.html (8,131 bytes)

4. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:44:57 +0200 (CEST)
Same story, MD and LVM produce a light overhead but are not really getting in the way to much. The disk will be the bottleneck. Andyou don't get the possibility to stripe across disk to improve speed
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00881.html (8,668 bytes)

5. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Jun 2001 11:00:30 -0400
It's implemented for MD RAID1 (by Marcelo) and I implemented it for MD RAID0 + LVM. We decided to pull the kiobuf support from the tree mostly due to all the controversy about it on linux-kernel. Ho
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg00882.html (8,563 bytes)

6. kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Dirk Steinberg <dws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 20:43:47 +0200
I remember that some time ago there were mount options for XFS named kio and kiocluster. Inspecting my copy of the XFS CVS tree I was unable to locate these options in the source, so apparently they
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02025.html (7,107 bytes)

7. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 22:22:29 +0200 (CEST)
kiocluster is gone and not available untill there is decided what to build into the kernel. In this case we are following standard kernels. There is probably going to be some form of kiocluster in 2.
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02029.html (7,814 bytes)

8. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Dirk Steinberg <dws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:24:59 +0200
What about kio? I see it's implemented for both SCSI and EIDE. How about MD and LVM? Should I expect a significant performance penalty for using XFS on top of LVM or MD instead of running it directly
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02048.html (8,131 bytes)

9. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:44:57 +0200 (CEST)
Same story, MD and LVM produce a light overhead but are not really getting in the way to much. The disk will be the bottleneck. Andyou don't get the possibility to stripe across disk to improve speed
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02051.html (8,668 bytes)

10. Re: kiocluster (score: 1)
Author: "Martin K. Petersen" <mkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 24 Jun 2001 11:00:30 -0400
It's implemented for MD RAID1 (by Marcelo) and I implemented it for MD RAID0 + LVM. We decided to pull the kiobuf support from the tree mostly due to all the controversy about it on linux-kernel. Ho
/archives/xfs/2001-06/msg02052.html (8,563 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu